Moral Semantics Survive Machine Translation: Cross-Lingual Evidence from Moral Foundations Corpora

Moral language is subtle and culturally variable, making it difficult to translate faithfully across languages. Idiomatic expressions, slang, and cultural references introduce hard-to-avoid translation artifacts. Yet automated moral values classification depends on language-specific annotated corpora that exist almost exclusively in English. We investigate whether LLM-based translation can bridge this gap, taking Polish as a test case. Using $\sim$50k morally-annotated social media posts from a diverse range of topics, we apply a principled four-method validation pipeline: LaBSE cross-lingual embedding similarity, Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA), LLM-as-judge evaluation, and deep learning classifier parity tests. We show that despite shortcomings in handling slang, vulgarity, and culturally-loaded expressions, direct translation preserves subtle moral cues well enough to be harvested by cross-lingual machine learning -- with mean cosine similarity of 0.86 and AUC gaps of 0.01--0.02 across all foundations closing further under fine-tuning of language models. These results demonstrate that machine translation is a practical and cost-effective path to moral values research in languages currently under-resourced in this domain. We demonstrate this for Polish as a representative Slavic language, with expected generalisation to related languages.

Can You Keep a Secret? Involuntary Information Leakage in Language Model Writing

Language models are deployed in settings that require compartmentalization: system prompts should not be disclosed, chain-of-thought reasoning is hidden from users, and sensitive data passes through shared contexts. We test whether models can keep prompted information out of their writing. We give each model a secret word with instructions not to reveal it, then ask it to write a story. A second model tries to identify the secret from the story in a binary discrimination test. The secret word never appears literally in any output, but all five frontier models we test leak it thematically -- through topic choice, imagery, and setting--6hy-at rates significantly different from chance, up to 79\%. When told to actively hide the secret, models write \emph{away from} it, and this avoidance is itself detectable. The leakage is cross-model readable, scales sharply with model size within two model families, and disappears entirely for short-form writing like jokes. Giving the model a decoy concept to ``focus on instead'' partially redirects the leakage from the real secret to the decoy. Attending to a secret appears to open up an information channel that frontier LLMs cannot close, even when instructed to.

Synthetic Sources?: Auditing Generative Search Engine Citations for Evidence of AI-Generated Sources

The growing accessibility of Large Language Models via conversational interfaces capable of responding to users' questions by drawing on, synthesizing, and citing information from the web (i.e., Generative Search Engines) has simplified the information-seeking process for users. However, with the proliferation of AI-generated content on the web, it is unclear whether these engines can reliably omit citing synthetic sources (i.e., AI-generated sources). Should these engines be unable to do so, this puts users at risk of harm by treating information from AI-generated sources synthesized in responses of generative search engines as equivalent to information from authoritative or official sources. In a step towards identifying whether AI-generated sources are being cited by these engines, this work presents an audit of four generative search engines (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity) using a total of 712 real-world human-generated queries spanning domains of public importance: politics, health, and the environment. Our findings show evidence of AI-generated sources being cited across all four generative search engines (~16% of cited sources) and identifies key source web domains these sources belong to that are frequently cited across these engines and topics. In addition, we observed that generative search engines include a somewhat narrow set of repeatedly cited domains while predominantly surfacing a large number of minimally cited domains in responses to users' queries. These findings contribute to the growing body of work on assessing the risks of generative search engines with the objective of increasing public awareness of their limitations and encouraging appropriate measures to improve information quality and governance of these systems.

AgentGR: Semantic-aware Agentic Group Decision-Making Simulator for Group Recommendation

Group Recommendation (GR) aims to suggest items to a group of users, which has become a critical component of modern social platforms. Existing GR methods focus on aggregating individual user preferences with advanced neural networks to infer group preferences. Despite effectiveness, they essentially treat group preference learning as a simple preference aggregation process, failing to capture the complex dynamics of real-world group decision-making. To address these limitations, we propose AgentGR, a novel Semantic-aware Agentic Group Decision-Making Simulator for Group Recommendations, inspired by the semantic reasoning and human behavior simulation capabilities of LLM-driven agents. It aims to jointly capture collaborative-semantic user preferences for member-role-playing and simulate dynamic group interactions to reflect real-world group decision-making processes, thereby boosting recommendation performance. Specifically, to capture collaborative-semantic user preferences, we introduce a semantic meta-path guided chain-of-preference reasoning mechanism that integrates high-order collaborative filtering signals and textual semantics to improve user preference profiles. To model the complex dynamics of group decision-making, we first recognize group topic and leadership to explicitly model the influencing factors within the group decision processes. Building on these, we simulate group-level decision dynamics via two multi-agent simulation strategies for recommendations: a static workflow-based strategy for efficiency and a dynamic dialogue-based strategy for precision. Extensive experiments on two real-world datasets show that AgentGR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in both recommendation accuracy and group decision simulation, highlighting its potential for real-world GR applications.

FedMental: Evaluating Federated Learning for Mental Health Detection from Social Media Data

Social media text data are often used to train Machine Learning (ML) models to identify users exhibiting high-risk mental health behaviors. However, sharing this sensitive data poses privacy risks and limits the growth of benchmark datasets. We comprehensively evaluate whether privacy-preserving ML techniques can enable safer data sharing while preserving performance. Specifically, we apply federated learning (FL) and Differentially Private FL for two widely-studied mental health prediction tasks: depression detection on X (Twitter) and suicide crisis detection on Reddit. We simulate realistic data-sharing scenarios by treating each user as a client in a non-IID setting, evaluating across different client fractions, aggregation strategies, and privacy budgets. While FL achieves comparable performance to centralized training (centralized F1 = 85.63; best FL model F1 = 83.16) on depression identification, we find that Differentially Private FL has a large performance-privacy trade-off (up to F1 = 27.01 drop) even with low levels of noise (epsilon = 50). This is due to the distortion of highly informative yet sparse mental health linguistic markers related to mental health, like health topics and emotion words. This research empirically demonstrates the potential and limitations of current privacy preservation techniques for mental health inference tasks.

Robust Biomedical Publication Type and Study Design Classification with Knowledge-Guided Perturbations

Accurately and consistently indexing biomedical literature by publication type and study design is essential for supporting evidence synthesis and knowledge discovery. Prior work on automated publication type and study design indexing has primarily focused on expanding label coverage, enriching feature representations, and improving in-domain accuracy, with evaluation typically conducted on data drawn from the same distribution as training. Although pretrained biomedical language models achieve strong performance under these settings, models optimized for in-domain accuracy may rely on superficial lexical or dataset-specific cues, resulting in reduced robustness under distributional shift. In this study, we introduce an evaluation framework based on controlled semantic perturbations to assess the robustness of a publication type classifier and investigate robustness-oriented training strategies that combine entity masking and domain-adversarial training to mitigate reliance on spurious topical correlations. Our results show that the commonly observed trade-off between robustness and in-domain accuracy can be mitigated when robustness objectives are designed to selectively suppress non-task-defining features while preserving salient methodological signals. We find that these improvements arise from two complementary mechanisms: (1) increased reliance on explicit methodological cues when such cues are present in the input, and (2) reduced reliance on spurious domain-specific topical features. These findings highlight the importance of feature-level robustness analysis for publication type and study design classification and suggest that refining masking and adversarial objectives to more selectively suppress topical information may further improve robustness. Data, code, and models are available at: https://github.com/ScienceNLP-Lab/MultiTagger-v2/tree/main/ICHI

Correcting Selection Bias in Sparse User Feedback for Large Language Model Quality Estimation: A Multi-Agent Hierarchical Bayesian Approach

[Abridged] Production LLM deployments receive feedback from a non-random fraction of users: thumbs sit mostly in the tails of the satisfaction distribution, and a naive average over them can land 40-50 percentage points away from true system quality. We treat this as a topic- and sentiment- stratified selection-bias problem and propose a three-agent hierarchical Bayesian pipeline that does not require ground-truth labels on individual interactions. A Topic Clustering Agent partitions the stream via UMAP + HDBSCAN over text embeddings; a Bias Modeling Agent fits a two-stage hierarchical Beta-Binomial under NUTS, inferring per-topic selection rates $s_c$ and quality $q_c$ with partial pooling; a Synthesis Agent reweights $q_c$ by true topic prevalence $\hatπ_c = n_c/N$ to report a bias-corrected aggregate posterior $\bar Q = \sum_c \hatπ_c q_c$ with credible interval, plus drift signals for online recalibration. Validation uses UltraFeedback (N=10,232 retained interactions, $C=18$ clusters, $Q^\star=0.6249$) with simulated topic- and sentiment-dependent selection biases. We compare five Bayesian variants against Naive and IPW baselines. A mild prior on the feedback channel (typical positive-feedback rate and negative-to-positive ratio, both readable from any production dashboard without labels) keeps Hierarchical-Informed within 4-13 pp of $Q^\star$ as the bias ratio sweeps from 1:1 to 30:1, with 95% credible intervals covering $Q^\star$ in 50/50 random-seed replicates at $κ_{\max}=10$. Without channel-side priors, every weak-prior variant misses $Q^\star$ by 22-33 pp: the per-cluster sufficient statistics admit a one-parameter family of equally good fits, and the prior on the bias channel (not on latent quality) is what breaks the degeneracy.

AutoResearchClaw: Self-Reinforcing Autonomous Research with Human-AI Collaboration

Automating scientific discovery requires more than generating papers from ideas. Real research is iterative: hypotheses are challenged from multiple perspectives, experiments fail and inform the next attempt, and lessons accumulate across cycles. Existing autonomous research systems often model this process as a linear pipeline: they rely on single-agent reasoning, stop when execution fails, and do not carry experience across runs. We present AutoResearchClaw, a multi-agent autonomous research pipeline built on five mechanisms: structured multi-agent debate for hypothesis generation and result analysis, a self-healing executor with a \textsc{Pivot}/\textsc{Refine} decision loop that transforms failures into information, verifiable result reporting that prevents fabricated numbers and hallucinated citations, human-in-the-loop collaboration with seven intervention modes spanning full autonomy to step-by-step oversight, and cross-run evolution that converts past mistakes into future safeguards. On ARC-Bench, a 25-topic experiment-stage benchmark, AutoResearchClaw outperforms AI Scientist v2 by 54.7%. A human-in-the-loop ablation across seven intervention modes reveals that precise, targeted collaboration at high-leverage decision points consistently outperforms both full autonomy and exhaustive step-by-step oversight. We position AutoResearchClaw as a research amplifier that augments rather than replaces human scientific judgment. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/AutoResearchClaw.

A Formative Study of Brief Affective Text as a Complement to Wearable Sensing for Longitudinal Student Health Monitoring

Wearable devices capture physiological and behavioral data with increasing fidelity, but the psychological context shaping these outcomes is difficult to recover from sensor data alone, limiting passive sensing utility for digital health. We examined whether ultra-brief naturalistic concern text could serve as a scalable complement to passive sensing. In a year-long study of 458 university students (3,610 person-waves) tracked with Oura rings, participants responded bimonthly to an open-ended prompt about what concerned them most; responses had a median length of three words. We compared dictionary-based, general pretrained, and domain-adapted NLP approaches using within-person mixed-effects models across nine sleep and physical activity outcomes. Weeks dominated by academic concern framing were associated with lower physical activity; weeks characterized by emotional exhaustion language were associated with poorer sleep quality and lower heart rate variability. General pretrained embeddings outperformed domain-adapted models for most outcomes, with domain adaptation showing relative advantage for autonomic outcomes. Zero-shot classification of concern topics produced no significant associations, while affective dimensions across all three methods were consistently associated with outcomes, indicating emotional register rather than topical content carries the signal. These findings offer design guidance: ultra-brief affective prompts enrich the psychological interpretability of passive physiological data at minimal burden.

PRISM-X: Experiments on Personalised Fine-Tuning with Human and Simulated Users

Personalisation is a standard feature of conversational AI systems used by millions; yet, the efficacy of personalisation methods is often evaluated in academic research using simulated users rather than real people. This raises questions about how users and their simulated counterparts differ in interaction patterns and judgements, as well as whether personalisation is best achieved through context-based prompting or weight-based fine-tuning. Here, in a large-scale within-subject experiment, we re-recruit 530 participants from 52 countries two years after they gave their preferences in the PRISM dataset (Kirk et al., 2024) to evaluate personalised and non-personalised language models in blinded multi-turn conversations. We find preference fine-tuning (P-DPO, Li et al., 2024) significantly outperforms both a generic model and personalised prompting but adapting to individual preference data yields marginal gains over training on pooled preferences from a diverse population. Beyond length biases, fine-tuning amplifies sycophancy and relationship-seeking behaviours that people reward in short-term evaluations but which may introduce deleterious long-term consequences. Replicating this within-subject experiment with simulated users recovers aggregate model hierarchies but simulators perform far below human self-consistency baselines for individual judgements, discuss different topics, exhibit amplified position biases, and produce feedback dynamics that diverge from humans.