IDP-Bench: Benchmarking ability of LLMs to protect personal information in interdependent privacy contexts

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming widely deployed as personal AI assistants with access to sensitive user data, making privacy a major challenge for their design and evaluation. Prior work focuses mainly on individual-level risks, overlooking \textbf{interdependent privacy (IDP)}--where one person's data may be revealed by others without their knowledge or consent. We address this gap by introducing \textbf{IDP-Bench}: the first LLM benchmark for IDP scenarios, grounded in the Contextual Integrity (CI) framework. We evaluate eight open-source LLMs on their understanding of IDP scenarios across three levels of IDP reasoning using two LLM judges. Results show strong co-ownership recognition (6/8 models exceed 90\%) but persistent weaknesses in identifying CI parameters (information attribute, primary subject) and IDP-specific parameters such as secondary subjects, where 7/8 models score below 74\%. Models also struggle to judge sharing appropriateness (5/8 scoring below 77\%). While the ability to judge the appropriateness of sharing improves with scale, performance tends to decline in smaller models, and prompt sensitivity remains high on IDP-specific questions--highlighting the need for more targeted study of IDP in LLM privacy research. Data \& code available \href{https://github.com/tisl-lab/Interdependent_Privacy_Bench}{here}.

Mechanism Plausibility in Generative Agent-Based Modeling

Large language models (LLMs) can generate high-level diverse phenomena without explicitly programmed rules. This capability has led to their adoption within different agent-based models (ABMs) and social simulations. Recently, research has aim to test whether they are capable of generating different phenomena of interest, for example, human behavior on social media platforms or performance in game-theoretic scenarios. However, capability, prediction, and explanation are different -- drawing from the philosophy of science and mechanisms literature, \textit{explanation} requires showing, to some degree, how a phenomenon is produced by related organized entities and activities. For modelers, describing the characteristics of an experiment or whether a simulation provides progress in capability (or explanation), can be difficult without being grounded in potentially distant research areas. We integrate recent work on LLM-ABMs with contemporary philosophy of science literature and use it to operationalize a definition of `plausibility' in a four-level scale. Our scale separates the evaluation of a model's generative sufficiency (ability to reproduce a phenomenon) from its mechanistic plausibility (how the phenomenon could be produced), and clarifies the distinct roles of different models, such as predictive and explanatory ones. We introduce this as the Mechanism Plausibility Scale.

WikiGap: Promoting Epistemic Equity by Surfacing Knowledge Gaps Between English Wikipedia and other Language Editions

With more than 11 times as many pageviews as the next, English Wikipedia dominates global knowledge access relative to other language editions. Readers are prone to assuming English Wikipedia as a superset of all language editions, leading many to prefer it even when their primary language is not English. Other language editions, however, comprise complementary facts rooted in their respective cultures and media environments, which are marginalized in English Wikipedia. While Wikipedia's user interface enables switching between language editions through its Interlanguage Link (ILL) system, it does not reveal to readers that other language editions contain valuable, complementary information. We present WikiGap, a system that surfaces complementary facts sourced from other Wikipedias within the English Wikipedia interface. Specifically, by combining a recent multilingual information-gap discovery method with a user-centered design, WikiGap enables access to complementary information from French, Russian, and Chinese Wikipedia. In a mixed-methods study (n=21), WikiGap significantly improved fact-finding accuracy, reduced task time, and received a 32-point higher usability score relative to Wikipedia's current ILL-based navigation system. Participants reported increased awareness of the availability of complementary information in non-English editions and reconsidered the completeness of English Wikipedia. WikiGap thus paves the way for improved epistemic equity across language editions.

Algorithmic Collective Action with Two Collectives

Given that data-dependent algorithmic systems have become impactful in more domains of life, the need for individuals to promote their own interests and hold algorithms accountable has grown. To have meaningful influence, individuals must band together to engage in collective action. Groups that engage in such algorithmic collective action are likely to vary in size, membership characteristics, and crucially, objectives. In this work, we introduce a first of a kind framework for studying collective action with two or more collectives that strategically behave to manipulate data-driven systems. With more than one collective acting on a system, unexpected interactions may occur. We use this framework to conduct experiments with language model-based classifiers and recommender systems where two collectives each attempt to achieve their own individual objectives. We examine how differing objectives, strategies, sizes, and homogeneity can impact a collective's efficacy. We find that the unintentional interactions between collectives can be quite significant; a collective acting in isolation may be able to achieve their objective (e.g., improve classification outcomes for themselves or promote a particular item), but when a second collective acts simultaneously, the efficacy of the first group drops by as much as $75\%$. We find that, in the recommender system context, neither fully heterogeneous nor fully homogeneous collectives stand out as most efficacious and that heterogeneity's impact is secondary compared to collective size. Our results signal the need for more transparency in both the underlying algorithmic models and the different behaviors individuals or collectives may take on these systems. This approach also allows collectives to hold algorithmic system developers accountable and provides a framework for people to actively use their own data to promote their own interests.

Responsible AI in Open Ecosystems: Reconciling Innovation with Risk Assessment and Disclosure

The rapid scaling of AI has spurred a growing emphasis on ethical considerations in both development and practice. This has led to the formulation of increasingly sophisticated model auditing and reporting requirements, as well as governance frameworks to mitigate potential risks to individuals and society. At this critical juncture, we review the practical challenges of promoting responsible AI and transparency in informal sectors like OSS that support vital infrastructure and see widespread use. We focus on how model performance evaluation may inform or inhibit probing of model limitations, biases, and other risks. Our controlled analysis of 7903 Hugging Face projects found that risk documentation is strongly associated with evaluation practices. Yet, submissions (N=789) from the platform's most popular competitive leaderboard showed less accountability among high performers. Our findings can inform AI providers and legal scholars in designing interventions and policies that preserve open-source innovation while incentivizing ethical uptake.

Push and Pull: A Framework for Measuring Attentional Agency

We propose a framework for measuring attentional agency - the ability to allocate one's attention according to personal desires, goals, and intentions - on digital platforms. Platforms extend people's limited powers of attention by extrapolating their preferences to large collections of previously unconsidered informational objects. However, platforms typically also allow people to influence one another's attention. We introduce a formal framework for measuring how much a given platform empowers people to both pull information into their own attentional field and push information into the attentional fields of others. We also use these definitions to shed light on the implications of generative foundation models, which enable users to bypass the implicit "attentional bargain" that underlies embedded advertising and other methods for capturing economic value from informational goods. We conclude with a set of policy strategies that can be used to understand and reshape the distribution of attentional agency online.

Addressing "Documentation Debt" in Machine Learning Research: A Retrospective Datasheet for BookCorpus

Recent literature has underscored the importance of dataset documentation work for machine learning, and part of this work involves addressing "documentation debt" for datasets that have been used widely but documented sparsely. This paper aims to help address documentation debt for BookCorpus, a popular text dataset for training large language models. Notably, researchers have used BookCorpus to train OpenAI's GPT-N models and Google's BERT models, even though little to no documentation exists about the dataset's motivation, composition, collection process, etc. We offer a preliminary datasheet that provides key context and information about BookCorpus, highlighting several notable deficiencies. In particular, we find evidence that (1) BookCorpus likely violates copyright restrictions for many books, (2) BookCorpus contains thousands of duplicated books, and (3) BookCorpus exhibits significant skews in genre representation. We also find hints of other potential deficiencies that call for future research, including problematic content, potential skews in religious representation, and lopsided author contributions. While more work remains, this initial effort to provide a datasheet for BookCorpus adds to growing literature that urges more careful and systematic documentation for machine learning datasets.