What Your Posts Reveal: A Benchmark and Agentic Framework for User-Level Privacy Leakage on Social Media

Public social media posts can reveal private information through weak cues scattered across text, images, or metadata. Such leakage is often cumulative and cross-post: cues that appear harmless in isolation may jointly expose a user's home, workplace, or routine. However, current research lacks a unified benchmark for user-level multimodal privacy leakage and an evaluation metric that captures exposure severity beyond binary accuracy. To address these gaps, we propose SopriBench, a synthetic benchmark guided by leakage patterns abstracted from a private reference corpus of Rednote and Instagram accounts, covering 50 user profiles and 1,569 images with attributes, contextual sensitivity, granularity, leakage type, inference difficulty, and supporting evidence. We further introduce the Privacy Exposure Score (PES), which weights value granularity by contextual sensitivity. Inspired by abductive reasoning, we introduce Argus, a training-free agentic framework for cumulative leakage inference. Argus forms hypotheses from accumulated evidence, verifies supporting evidence, and aggregates cross-post cues into privacy profiles, achieving 0.55 PES, a 25% improvement over the strongest baseline, with the largest gain on cross-post leakage.

Source Coverage and Citation Bias in LLM-based vs. Traditional Search Engines

LLM-based Search Engines (LLM-SEs) introduces a new paradigm for information seeking. Unlike Traditional Search Engines (TSEs) (e.g., Google), these systems summarize results, often providing limited citation transparency. The implications of this shift remain largely unexplored, yet raises key questions regarding trust and transparency. In this paper, we present a large-scale empirical study of LLM-SEs, analyzing 55,936 queries and the corresponding search results across six LLM-SEs and two TSEs. We confirm that LLM-SEs cites domain resources with greater diversity than TSEs. Indeed, 37% of domains are unique to LLM-SEs. However, certain risks still persist: LLM-SEs do not outperform TSEs in credibility, political neutrality and safety metrics. Finally, to understand the selection criteria of LLM-SEs, we perform a feature-based analysis to identify key factors influencing source choice. Our findings provide actionable insights for end users, website owners, and developers.

Exploring the Capability of ChatGPT to Reproduce Human Labels for Social Computing Tasks (Extended Version)

Harnessing the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT can help address social challenges through inclusive, ethical, and sustainable means. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which ChatGPT can annotate data for social computing tasks, aiming to reduce the complexity and cost of undertaking web research. To evaluate ChatGPT's potential, we re-annotate seven datasets using ChatGPT, covering topics related to pressing social issues like COVID-19 misinformation, social bot deception, cyberbully, clickbait news, and the Russo-Ukrainian War. Our findings demonstrate that ChatGPT exhibits promise in handling these data annotation tasks, albeit with some challenges. Across the seven datasets, ChatGPT achieves an average annotation F1-score of 72.00%. Its performance excels in clickbait news annotation, correctly labeling 89.66% of the data. However, we also observe significant variations in performance across individual labels. Our study reveals predictable patterns in ChatGPT's annotation performance. Thus, we propose GPT-Rater, a tool to predict if ChatGPT can correctly label data for a given annotation task. Researchers can use this to identify where ChatGPT might be suitable for their annotation requirements. We show that GPT-Rater effectively predicts ChatGPT's performance. It performs best on a clickbait headlines dataset by achieving an average F1-score of 95.00%. We believe that this research opens new avenues for analysis and can reduce barriers to engaging in social computing research.

Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Tasks

The release of ChatGPT has uncovered a range of possibilities whereby large language models (LLMs) can substitute human intelligence. In this paper, we seek to understand whether ChatGPT has the potential to reproduce human-generated label annotations in social computing tasks. Such an achievement could significantly reduce the cost and complexity of social computing research. As such, we use ChatGPT to relabel five seminal datasets covering stance detection (2x), sentiment analysis, hate speech, and bot detection. Our results highlight that ChatGPT does have the potential to handle these data annotation tasks, although a number of challenges remain. ChatGPT obtains an average accuracy 0.609. Performance is highest for the sentiment analysis dataset, with ChatGPT correctly annotating 64.9% of tweets. Yet, we show that performance varies substantially across individual labels. We believe this work can open up new lines of analysis and act as a basis for future research into the exploitation of ChatGPT for human annotation tasks.