Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
Correcting misinformation in public online spaces often exposes users to hostility and ad hominem attacks, discouraging participation in corrective discourse. This study presents empirical evidence that invoking Grok, the native large language model on X, rather than directly confronting other users, is associated with different social responses during misinformation correction. Using an observational design, 100 correction replies across five high-conflict misinformation topics were analyzed, with corrections balanced between Grok-mediated and direct human-issued responses. The primary outcome was whether a correction received at least one ad hominem attack within a 24-hour window. Ad hominem attacks occurred in 72 percent of human-issued corrections and in none of the Grok-mediated corrections. A chi-square test confirmed a statistically significant association with a large effect size. These findings suggest that AI-mediated correction may alter the social dynamics of public disagreement by reducing interpersonal hostility during misinformation responses.
Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Generation (mRAG) systems often exhibit a perceived preference for high-resource languages, particularly English, resulting in the widespread adoption of English pivoting. While prior studies attribute this advantage to the superior English-centric capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), we find that such measurements are significantly distorted by structural priors inherent in evaluation benchmarks. Specifically, we identify exposure bias and a gold availability prior-both driven by the disproportionate concentration of resources in English-as well as cultural priors rooted in topic locality, as factors that hinder accurate assessment of genuine language preference. To address these biases, we propose DeLP (Debiased Language Preference), a calibrated metric designed to explicitly factor out these structural confounds. Our analysis using DeLP reveals that the previously reported English preference is largely a byproduct of evidence distribution rather than an inherent model bias. Instead, we find that retrievers fundamentally favor monolingual alignment between the query and the document language. Building on this insight, we introduce DELTA (DEbiased Language preference-guided Text Augmentation), a lightweight and efficient mRAG framework that strategically leverages monolingual alignment to optimize cross-lingual retrieval and generation. Experimental results demonstrate that DELTA consistently outperforms English pivoting and mRAG baselines across diverse languages.
We present a systematic framework of indices designed to characterize Large Language Model (LLM) responses when challenged with rebuttals during a chat. Assessing how LLMs respond to user dissent is crucial for understanding their reliability and behavior patterns, yet the complexity of human-LLM interactions makes systematic evaluation challenging. Our approach employs a fictitious-response rebuttal method that quantifies LLM behavior when presented with multiple-choice questions followed by deliberate challenges to their fictitious previous response. The indices are specifically designed to detect and measure what could be characterized as sycophantic behavior (excessive agreement with user challenges) or stubborn responses (rigid adherence to the fictitious response in the chat history) from LLMs. These metrics allow investigation of the relationships between sycophancy, stubbornness, and the model's actual mastery of the subject matter. We demonstrate the utility of these indices using two physics problems as test scenarios with various OpenAI models. The framework is intentionally generalizable to any multiple-choice format question, including on topics without universally accepted correct answers. Our results reveal measurable differences across OpenAI model generations, with trends indicating that newer models and those employing greater "Reasoning Effort" exhibit reduced sycophantic behavior. The FR pairing method combined with our proposed indices provides a practical, adaptable toolkit for systematically comparing LLM dialogue behaviors across different models and contexts.
To develop a reliable AI for psychological assessment, we introduce \texttt{PsychEval}, a multi-session, multi-therapy, and highly realistic benchmark designed to address three key challenges: \textbf{1) Can we train a highly realistic AI counselor?} Realistic counseling is a longitudinal task requiring sustained memory and dynamic goal tracking. We propose a multi-session benchmark (spanning 6-10 sessions across three distinct stages) that demands critical capabilities such as memory continuity, adaptive reasoning, and longitudinal planning. The dataset is annotated with extensive professional skills, comprising over 677 meta-skills and 4577 atomic skills. \textbf{2) How to train a multi-therapy AI counselor?} While existing models often focus on a single therapy, complex cases frequently require flexible strategies among various therapies. We construct a diverse dataset covering five therapeutic modalities (Psychodynamic, Behaviorism, CBT, Humanistic Existentialist, and Postmodernist) alongside an integrative therapy with a unified three-stage clinical framework across six core psychological topics. \textbf{3) How to systematically evaluate an AI counselor?} We establish a holistic evaluation framework with 18 therapy-specific and therapy-shared metrics across Client-Level and Counselor-Level dimensions. To support this, we also construct over 2,000 diverse client profiles. Extensive experimental analysis fully validates the superior quality and clinical fidelity of our dataset. Crucially, \texttt{PsychEval} transcends static benchmarking to serve as a high-fidelity reinforcement learning environment that enables the self-evolutionary training of clinically responsible and adaptive AI counselors.
As LLMs gain persuasive agentic capabilities through extended dialogues, they introduce novel risks in multi-turn conversational scams that single-turn safety evaluations fail to capture. We systematically study these risks using a controlled LLM-to-LLM simulation framework across multi-turn scam scenarios. Evaluating eight state-of-the-art models in English and Chinese, we analyze dialogue outcomes and qualitatively annotate attacker strategies, defensive responses, and failure modes. Results reveal that scam interactions follow recurrent escalation patterns, while defenses employ verification and delay mechanisms. Furthermore, interactional failures frequently stem from safety guardrail activation and role instability. Our findings highlight multi-turn interactional safety as a critical, distinct dimension of LLM behavior.
The increasing production of waste, driven by population growth, has created challenges in managing and recycling materials effectively. Manual waste sorting is a common practice; however, it remains inefficient for handling large-scale waste streams and presents health risks for workers. On the other hand, existing automated sorting approaches still struggle with the high variability, clutter, and visual complexity of real-world waste streams. The lack of real-world datasets for waste sorting is a major reason automated systems for this problem are underdeveloped. Accordingly, we introduce SortWaste, a densely annotated object detection dataset collected from a Material Recovery Facility. Additionally, we contribute to standardizing waste detection in sorting lines by proposing ClutterScore, an objective metric that gauges the scene's hardness level using a set of proxies that affect visual complexity (e.g., object count, class and size entropy, and spatial overlap). In addition to these contributions, we provide an extensive benchmark of state-of-the-art object detection models, detailing their results with respect to the hardness level assessed by the proposed metric. Despite achieving promising results (mAP of 59.7% in the plastic-only detection task), performance significantly decreases in highly cluttered scenes. This highlights the need for novel and more challenging datasets on the topic.
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on many tasks, but their progress remains uneven across languages and cultures, often reflecting values latent in English-centric training data. To enable practical cultural alignment, we propose a scalable approach that leverages national social studies curricula as a foundation for culture-aware supervision. We introduce CuCu, an automated multi-agent LLM framework that transforms national textbook curricula into open-ended, culture-specific question-answer pairs. Applying CuCu to the Korean national social studies curriculum, we construct KCaQA, comprising 34.1k open-ended QA pairs. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that KCaQA covers culture-specific topics and produces responses grounded in local sociocultural contexts.
Despite recent advances in understanding and leveraging long-range conversational memory, existing benchmarks still lack systematic evaluation of large language models(LLMs) across diverse memory dimensions, particularly in multi-session settings. In this work, we propose EvolMem, a new benchmark for assessing multi-session memory capabilities of LLMs and agent systems. EvolMem is grounded in cognitive psychology and encompasses both declarative and non-declarative memory, further decomposed into multiple fine-grained abilities. To construct the benchmark, we introduce a hybrid data synthesis framework that consists of topic-initiated generation and narrative-inspired transformations. This framework enables scalable generation of multi-session conversations with controllable complexity, accompanied by sample-specific evaluation guidelines. Extensive evaluation reveals that no LLM consistently outperforms others across all memory dimensions. Moreover, agent memory mechanisms do not necessarily enhance LLMs' capabilities and often exhibit notable efficiency limitations. Data and code will be released at https://github.com/shenye7436/EvolMem.
Social scientists employ latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to find highly specific topics in large corpora, but they often struggle in this task because (1) LDA, in general, takes a significant amount of time to fit on large corpora; (2) unsupervised LDA fragments topics into sub-topics in short documents; (3) semi-supervised LDA fails to identify specific topics defined using seed words. To solve these problems, I have developed a new topic model called distributed asymmetric allocation (DAA) that integrates multiple algorithms for efficiently identifying sentences about important topics in large corpora. I evaluate the ability of DAA to identify politically important topics by fitting it to the transcripts of speeches at the United Nations General Assembly between 1991 and 2017. The results show that DAA can classify sentences significantly more accurately and quickly than LDA thanks to the new algorithms. More generally, the results demonstrate that it is important for social scientists to optimize Dirichlet priors of LDA to perform content analysis accurately.
Volunteer moderators play a crucial role in sustaining online dialogue, but they often disagree about what should or should not be allowed. In this paper, we study the complexity of content moderation with a focus on disagreements between moderators, which we term the ``gray area'' of moderation. Leveraging 5 years and 4.3 million moderation log entries from 24 subreddits of different topics and sizes, we characterize how gray area, or disputed cases, differ from undisputed cases. We show that one-in-seven moderation cases are disputed among moderators, often addressing transgressions where users' intent is not directly legible, such as in trolling and brigading, as well as tensions around community governance. This is concerning, as almost half of all gray area cases involved automated moderation decisions. Through information-theoretic evaluations, we demonstrate that gray area cases are inherently harder to adjudicate than undisputed cases and show that state-of-the-art language models struggle to adjudicate them. We highlight the key role of expert human moderators in overseeing the moderation process and provide insights about the challenges of current moderation processes and tools.