Multi-document Summarization through Multi-document Event Relation Graph Reasoning in LLMs: a case study in Framing Bias Mitigation

Media outlets are becoming more partisan and polarized nowadays. Most previous work focused on detecting media bias. In this paper, we aim to mitigate media bias by generating a neutralized summary given multiple articles presenting different ideological views. Motivated by the critical role of events and event relations in media bias detection, we propose to increase awareness of bias in LLMs via multi-document events reasoning and use a multi-document event relation graph to guide the summarization process. This graph contains rich event information useful to reveal bias: four common types of in-doc event relations to reflect content framing bias, cross-doc event coreference relation to reveal content selection bias, and event-level moral opinions to highlight opinionated framing bias. We further develop two strategies to incorporate the multi-document event relation graph for neutralized summarization. Firstly, we convert a graph into natural language descriptions and feed the textualized graph into LLMs as a part of a hard text prompt. Secondly, we encode the graph with graph attention network and insert the graph embedding into LLMs as a soft prompt. Both automatic evaluation and human evaluation confirm that our approach effectively mitigates both lexical and informational media bias, and meanwhile improves content preservation.

Hidden in Plain Sight: Evaluation of the Deception Detection Capabilities of LLMs in Multimodal Settings

Detecting deception in an increasingly digital world is both a critical and challenging task. In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of the automated deception detection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) across diverse domains. We assess the performance of both open-source and commercial LLMs on three distinct datasets: real life trial interviews (RLTD), instructed deception in interpersonal scenarios (MU3D), and deceptive reviews (OpSpam). We systematically analyze the effectiveness of different experimental setups for deception detection, including zero-shot and few-shot approaches with random or similarity-based in-context example selection. Our results show that fine-tuned LLMs achieve state-of-the-art performance on textual deception detection tasks, while LMMs struggle to fully leverage cross-modal cues. Additionally, we analyze the impact of auxiliary features, such as non-verbal gestures and video summaries, and examine the effectiveness of different prompting strategies, including direct label generation and chain-of-thought reasoning. Our findings provide key insights into how LLMs process and interpret deceptive cues across modalities, highlighting their potential and limitations in real-world deception detection applications.

Mitigating Gender Bias via Fostering Exploratory Thinking in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit gender bias, resulting in unequal treatment of male and female subjects across different contexts. To address this issue, we propose a novel data generation framework that fosters exploratory thinking in LLMs. Our approach prompts models to generate story pairs featuring male and female protagonists in structurally identical, morally ambiguous scenarios, then elicits and compares their moral judgments. When inconsistencies arise, the model is guided to produce balanced, gender-neutral judgments. These story-judgment pairs are used to fine-tune or optimize the models via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Experimental results show that our method significantly reduces gender bias while preserving or even enhancing general model capabilities. We will release the code and generated data.

CliME: Evaluating Multimodal Climate Discourse on Social Media and the Climate Alignment Quotient (CAQ)

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has raised questions about their ability to understand climate-related contexts. Though climate change dominates social media, analyzing its multimodal expressions is understudied, and current tools have failed to determine whether LLMs amplify credible solutions or spread unsubstantiated claims. To address this, we introduce CliME (Climate Change Multimodal Evaluation), a first-of-its-kind multimodal dataset, comprising 2579 Twitter and Reddit posts. The benchmark features a diverse collection of humorous memes and skeptical posts, capturing how these formats distill complex issues into viral narratives that shape public opinion and policy discussions. To systematically evaluate LLM performance, we present the Climate Alignment Quotient (CAQ), a novel metric comprising five distinct dimensions: Articulation, Evidence, Resonance, Transition, and Specificity. Additionally, we propose three analytical lenses: Actionability, Criticality, and Justice, to guide the assessment of LLM-generated climate discourse using CAQ. Our findings, based on the CAQ metric, indicate that while most evaluated LLMs perform relatively well in Criticality and Justice, they consistently underperform on the Actionability axis. Among the models evaluated, Claude 3.7 Sonnet achieves the highest overall performance. We publicly release our CliME dataset and code to foster further research in this domain.

LegalCore: A Dataset for Legal Documents Event Coreference Resolution

Recognizing events and their coreferential mentions in a document is essential for understanding semantic meanings of text. The existing research on event coreference resolution is mostly limited to news articles. In this paper, we present the first dataset for the legal domain, LegalCore, which has been annotated with comprehensive event and event coreference information. The legal contract documents we annotated in this dataset are several times longer than news articles, with an average length of around 25k tokens per document. The annotations show that legal documents have dense event mentions and feature both short-distance and super long-distance coreference links between event mentions. We further benchmark mainstream Large Language Models (LLMs) on this dataset for both event detection and event coreference resolution tasks, and find that this dataset poses significant challenges for state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, which perform significantly worse than a supervised baseline. We will publish the dataset as well as the code.

Boosting Logical Fallacy Reasoning in LLMs via Logical Structure Tree

Logical fallacy uses invalid or faulty reasoning in the construction of a statement. Despite the prevalence and harmfulness of logical fallacies, detecting and classifying logical fallacies still remains a challenging task. We observe that logical fallacies often use connective words to indicate an intended logical relation between two arguments, while the argument semantics does not actually support the logical relation. Inspired by this observation, we propose to build a logical structure tree to explicitly represent and track the hierarchical logic flow among relation connectives and their arguments in a statement. Specifically, this logical structure tree is constructed in an unsupervised manner guided by the constituency tree and a taxonomy of connectives for ten common logical relations, with relation connectives as non-terminal nodes and textual arguments as terminal nodes, and the latter are mostly elementary discourse units. We further develop two strategies to incorporate the logical structure tree into LLMs for fallacy reasoning. Firstly, we transform the tree into natural language descriptions and feed the textualized tree into LLMs as a part of the hard text prompt. Secondly, we derive a relation-aware tree embedding and insert the tree embedding into LLMs as a soft prompt. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach based on logical structure tree significantly improves precision and recall for both fallacy detection and fallacy classification.

Evaluating Gender Bias of LLMs in Making Morality Judgements

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in a multitude of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are still not immune to limitations such as social biases, especially gender bias. This work investigates whether current closed and open-source LLMs possess gender bias, especially when asked to give moral opinions. To evaluate these models, we curate and introduce a new dataset GenMO (Gender-bias in Morality Opinions) comprising parallel short stories featuring male and female characters respectively. Specifically, we test models from the GPT family (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-3.5-turbo-instruct, GPT-4-turbo), Llama 3 and 3.1 families (8B/70B), Mistral-7B and Claude 3 families (Sonnet and Opus). Surprisingly, despite employing safety checks, all production-standard models we tested display significant gender bias with GPT-3.5-turbo giving biased opinions in 24% of the samples. Additionally, all models consistently favour female characters, with GPT showing bias in 68-85% of cases and Llama 3 in around 81-85% instances. Additionally, our study investigates the impact of model parameters on gender bias and explores real-world situations where LLMs reveal biases in moral decision-making.

UAL-Bench: The First Comprehensive Unusual Activity Localization Benchmark

Localizing unusual activities, such as human errors or surveillance incidents, in videos holds practical significance. However, current video understanding models struggle with localizing these unusual events likely because of their insufficient representation in models' pretraining datasets. To explore foundation models' capability in localizing unusual activity, we introduce UAL-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for unusual activity localization, featuring three video datasets: UAG-OOPS, UAG-SSBD, UAG-FunQA, and an instruction-tune dataset: OOPS-UAG-Instruct, to improve model capabilities. UAL-Bench evaluates three approaches: Video-Language Models (Vid-LLMs), instruction-tuned Vid-LLMs, and a novel integration of Vision-Language Models and Large Language Models (VLM-LLM). Our results show the VLM-LLM approach excels in localizing short-span unusual events and predicting their onset (start time) more accurately than Vid-LLMs. We also propose a new metric, R@1, TD <= p, to address limitations in existing evaluation methods. Our findings highlight the challenges posed by long-duration videos, particularly in autism diagnosis scenarios, and the need for further advancements in localization techniques. Our work not only provides a benchmark for unusual activity localization but also outlines the key challenges for existing foundation models, suggesting future research directions on this important task.

Are LLMs Good Annotators for Discourse-level Event Relation Extraction?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in a wide array of natural language processing tasks. However, its effectiveness over discourse-level event relation extraction (ERE) tasks remains unexplored. In this paper, we assess the effectiveness of LLMs in addressing discourse-level ERE tasks characterized by lengthy documents and intricate relations encompassing coreference, temporal, causal, and subevent types. Evaluation is conducted using an commercial model, GPT-3.5, and an open-source model, LLaMA-2. Our study reveals a notable underperformance of LLMs compared to the baseline established through supervised learning. Although Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) can improve LLMs performance, it does not scale well compared to the smaller supervised baseline model. Our quantitative and qualitative analysis shows that LLMs have several weaknesses when applied for extracting event relations, including a tendency to fabricate event mentions, and failures to capture transitivity rules among relations, detect long distance relations, or comprehend contexts with dense event mentions.

LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.