LLM-Assisted Reranking to Operationalize Nuanced Objectives in Recommender Systems

Recommender systems have grown from content-organization tools into sophisticated systems that shape daily behavior. By controlling what we see, they shape what we perceive, raising concerns about filter bubbles, radicalization, polarization, and social inequality. Large language models (LLMs) enable more powerful personalization, intensifying these dynamics. Yet most recommenders are tuned for engagement or limited accuracy metrics, with little attention to broader social implications, e.g. how personalization reshapes exposure in socially consequential domains. We investigate whether LLM-assisted reranking, while improving personalization, inadvertently amplifies exposure to ideologically extreme or conspiratorial political content, a risk theorized but not empirically characterized in news recommendation. Using real news-consumption histories, we rerank YouTube's sidebar candidates through zero-shot, instruction-based prompting. We compare a baseline prompt with a constrained variant that preserves topical relevance and broadens ideological exposure while reducing conspiratorial or extreme content. Without constraints, reranking strengthened personalization but increased exposure to conspiratorial and extremist material for users whose histories contained such content. Lightweight prompt-level regularization reduced promotion of extreme content and increased ideological diversity, with modest relevance loss. Synthetic experiments suggest that LLMs rerank via statistical regularities in language rather than semantic understanding of ideology, clarifying why naive prompts amplify these patterns and why regularization can reshape them. Together, our results highlight the power of LLMs to operationalize contextual nuance in high-stakes recommendation, and the need to evaluate LLM-assisted personalization beyond accuracy and treat prompt design as a value-laden rather than neutral default.

Who Annotates in NLP? A Large-scale Assessment of Human Annotation Reporting between 2018 and 2025

Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled. We provide the first large-scale, task-level audit of human annotation reporting across major NLP venues, asking which annotation details are documented, which are missing, and how reporting varies across time, topic, venue, and intended use of human judgment. We introduce a unified taxonomy of annotation-reporting practices and validate an LLM-assisted extraction pipeline against Annotated-gold, a human-adjudicated gold standard of 41 papers and 72 annotation tasks, where the best model reaches human-comparable agreement with adjudicated labels, with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.606 versus 0.585 for human-human agreement. Using this pipeline, we construct Annotated-llm, a dataset covering ACL-venue papers from 2018-2025, with 2,667 extracted annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, and find that papers frequently report operational details such as recruitment strategies, annotator expertise, and annotation volume, but often omit details needed to assess annotation validity, including training, language proficiency, compensation, socio-demographics, adjudication, and agreement values, especially in model-evaluation studies. Our results show that annotation reporting in NLP has improved over time but remains uneven, and they establish a scalable framework and bare-minimum reporting recommendations for making human annotation more reliable, reproducible, and interpretable.

Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate

As LLMs are increasingly used to draft public-facing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,384 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human sub-arguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses.

Why Do Self-Harm Prediction Models Struggle to Generalise? Lexical and Semantic Variations in Emergency Department Triage Notes

Self-harm presentations to emergency departments (EDs) are strongly associated with higher suicide risk. NLP models have shown robust performance in detecting self-harm from triage notes within single hospitals, yet performance often declines across institutions. To examine potential causes, we compare ED triage notes from two hospitals by analyzing lexical characteristics, highly associated predictive features, and salient topics. Our results reveal variation in lexical expression and feature importance related to self-harm across hospitals, despite consistent core themes such as self-poisoning and self-injury. These documentation differences are associated with reduced cross-site performance. Our findings provide insight into how institutional variation affects the identification of self-harm in clinical text and highlight potential methods to improve model generalisability.

SECUREVENT: Hybrid AI/ML Security Monitoring for Distributed Event-Based Systems

Distributed event-based systems have become a common substrate for Internet-scale publish/subscribe services, IoT telemetry, cloud-native microservices, and security operations pipelines. Their loose coupling and asynchronous delivery improve scalability, but they also expand the attack surface: publishers, brokers, subscribers, topics, schemas, and temporal ordering can each be abused without a single component observing the whole behavior. This paper proposes SECUREVENT, a hybrid AI/ML security-monitoring architecture for distributed event-based systems. The architecture combines traditional protections such as authenticated transport, topic-level authorization, and signed events with online anomaly detection, graph-aware behavioral features, complex-event policy rules, federated learning, and adversarial-ML governance. A deterministic prototype study over synthetic event-stream attacks illustrates how a hybrid AI/CEP monitor can improve recall over static rules while retaining a low false-positive rate. The central claim is not that machine learning replaces cryptographic and access-control mechanisms, but that model-based security monitoring is necessary when event flows, identities, schemas, and timing relationships are too dynamic for static controls alone.

Beyond Topical Similarity: Contrastive Evidence Retrieval with Interpretable Attention Alignment in RAG

Ensuring factuality and interpretability in RAG remains an open and urgent problem. We introduce Contrastive Evidence Rationale Attention (CERA), the first retrieval framework to employ subjectivity-based hard negative selection and inject an evidential inductive bias into contrastive learning through an auxiliary attention alignment loss. CERA fine-tunes a dense retriever using two training objectives: triplet-based contrastive learning and interpretable attention alignment, which supervises CLS-to-token attention using a part-of-speech-weighted masking distribution over human-annotated factual rationales as evidence signals. Experiments on a large corpus of clinical trial reports demonstrate that the subjectivity-based hard negative selection substantially improves retrieval effectiveness compared to both Contriever and hard negative selection baselines. Furthermore, rationale alignment improves faithfulness while maintaining competitive retrieval performance, supporting the hypothesis that attention can serve as a more faithful explanation of model behavior when guided by human rationales. Moving beyond topical similarity, CERA enables the retriever to identify the specific tokens that constitute supporting evidence, promoting more interpretable evidence selection in RAG systems.

DiscourseFlip: An Oblique Discourse-Level Opinion Manipulation Attack against Black-box Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are widely deployed and increasingly influential, but their reliance on external corpora exposes new security risks from poisoned retrieval content. Existing RAG attacks are largely focusing on individual queries or narrow topic-local query sets, which limits their practical reach and offers limited camouflage in real-world settings. In this paper, we introduce discourse-level opinion manipulation, a new threat model in which coordinated influence across a semantic query network induces opinion shifts over a holistic, multi-topic query space. We formalize this threat in a black-box setting and propose DiscourseFlip, an agentic, graph-guided attack that dynamically allocates a limited poisoning budget to maximize discourse-level opinion deviation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DiscourseFlip consistently induces targeted opinion shifts across the contextualized query network and significantly outperforms existing baselines in terms of coverage and effectiveness. User studies further confirm that DiscourseFlip is effective while remaining well camouflaged from user detection. Moreover, systematic analyses show that existing mitigation strategies are ineffective against discourse-level manipulation, underscoring the urgent need for more robust and adaptive defenses to address discourse-level vulnerabilities.

TextFake: Benchmarking AI-Generated Image Detection on Text-Rich Images

Recent AI-generated image (AIGI) detectors perform well on natural-image benchmarks, but their behavior on text-rich forgeries, such as fabricated screenshots, documents, and news pages prevalent in misinformation, remains untested. We introduce TextFake, a 20,000-image benchmark for text-rich AIGI detection spanning 28 languages, 4 topic categories, and 2 scene modalities. Fake images are synthesized via a four-stage pipeline that annotates real images along three controlled dimensions and generates counterparts through distribution-aligned structured prompting, ruling out covariate shortcuts. Zero-shot evaluation of 14 specialized detectors and 3 frontier VLM APIs reveals a large systematic gap: no method exceeds 80% accuracy, with some dropping over 60% from natural-image benchmarks. Diagnostic evaluations identify three failure modes: the Text Density Curse, where dense glyphs overwhelm low-level detectors; Cloaking via Rendering Fidelity, where stronger text rendering suppresses enerative artifacts; and Threshold Collapse, where routine perturbations drive detectors toward chance-level performance.

Can AI Review Improve Paper Drafting? An Empirical Study on 20 Computer Architecture Submissions

Research is advancing faster than ever with artificial intelligence (AI); and so are the corresponding research papers. The exploding volume of AI-generated papers have put a strain to peer review, leading to the usage of AI-generated review, potentially wide yet sneaky. However, relevant ethical concerns about confidentiality, quality, and fairness are raised and no consensus has been reached in the broad research community. We expect the debate to continue for a while, but in the meantime, we ask an alternative, practical question: \textit{can AI review improve paper drafting?} We study 20 computer architecture papers, with varying levels of submission lineage, to expose how well AI review aligns with human review, quantified by a set of metrics we define. To conduct the case study, we build a web UI-integrated tool, \emph{AI-Paper-Review}, that generates structured AI review of a draft paper, available at https://github.com/unarylab/ai-paper-review. This tool selects several AI reviewers from a diverse pool of AI reviewers and clusters and ranks their comments based on commonality and importance of review comments. It also allows to align AI comments with human comments to facilitate metric-based validation. The case study shows that AI review can cover a significant fraction of human-raised issues, but also raises issues missing in human review. This paper is not intended to encourage using AI for peer review at the current stage, but to study that (1) how AI review can improve paper drafting and (2) the potential and limitation of AI-based peer review. The release of the tool and the case study data is intended to instigate future research on this topic. Misuse for peer review would violate the ethics policies from major academic venues.

Property Prediction of Stacked Bilayer Materials: A Multimodal Learning Approach

AI for materials science is a critical topic within AI for science, aiming to accelerate materials discovery and produce accurate property predictions. Bilayer 2D material stacking is essential for exploring new materials with novel functions and inherent phenomena, enabling the creation of new 2D bilayers for diverse real-world applications. Research on bilayer vdWs materials has made significant progress from experimental and computational perspectives. Various bilayer materials have been successfully synthe sized experimentally and the increasing utilization of high-throughput computing technology has con structed several computational two-dimensional materials databases. However, the use of AI to model bilayer stacking and predict new properties remains underexplored, necessitating further research studies. In this work, we propose a novel multimodal learning approach to study the interfaces between dissimilar materials that jointly enable new or multiple functions, and to predict new properties arising from the vertical integration (stacking) of different functional material layers under given configurations. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our approach compared to baseline methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/AnVuong123/bimat ml.