Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
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.
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.
Modern large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on inference-time planning and external tools to improve reasoning. We benchmark this behavior on two real-world settings: event-centric question answering over graph-structured knowledge (Event-QA) and persuasive response generation in Reddit ChangeMyView (CMV). Using LangChain and LangGraph, we compare a one-shot baseline against a plan-execute-replan agent equipped with task-specific tools (DBpedia SPARQL/lookup/schema exploration, Wikipedia-focused retrieval, and topical web search). We evaluate on 60 examples each from Event-QA and CMV (3 splits of 20), and report both mean end-to-end latency and per-example token cost estimates. We evaluate GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini under identical workflows and report accuracy and end-to-end latency. On Event-QA, the best tool-augmented configuration improves accuracy (e.g., 47.5\% $\rightarrow$ 67.5\% for GPT-4o) while increasing latency by orders of magnitude ($\sim$8s $\rightarrow$ $\sim$317s per example). On CMV, one-shot prompting is strongest (e.g., GPT-4o-mini achieves 75\% at $\sim$6s), and planning+search increases latency substantially without consistent gains. However, complex multi-tool orchestration exposes failure modes where the smaller model degrades. Overall, the findings highlight the need for task-specific, cost-aware choices of both model size and agent/tooling complexity.
Explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) has gained significant attention in recent years. Among other things, explainablility for deep neural networks has been a topic of intensive research due to the meteoric rise in prominence of deep neural networks and their "black-box" nature. xAI approaches can be characterized along different dimensions such as their scope (global versus local explanations) or underlying methodologies (statistic-based versus rule-based strategies). Methods generating global explanations aim to provide reasoning process applicable to all possible output classes while local explanation methods focus only on a single, specific class. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), a well-known statistical technique, identifies important features of a network. Deep neural network rule extraction method constructs IF-THEN rules that link input conditions to a class. Another approach focuses on generating counterfactuals which help explain how small changes to an input can affect the model's predictions. However, these techniques primarily focus on the input-output relationship and thus neglect the structure of the network in explanation generation. In this work, we propose xDNN(ASP), an explanation generation system for deep neural networks that provides global explanations. Given a neural network model and its training data, xDNN(ASP) extracts a logic program under answer set semantics that-in the ideal case-represents the trained model, i.e., answer sets of the extracted program correspond one-to-one to input-output pairs of the network. We demonstrate experimentally, using two synthetic datasets, that not only the extracted logic program maintains a high-level of accuracy in the prediction task, but it also provides valuable information for the understanding of the model such as the importance of features as well as the impact of hidden nodes on the prediction. The latter can be used as a guide for reducing the number of nodes used in hidden layers, i.e., providing a means for optimizing the network.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems rely on accurate document retrieval to ground large language models (LLMs) in external knowledge, yet retrieval quality often degrades in corpora where topics overlap and thematic variation is high. This work proposes topic-enriched embeddings that integrate term-based signals and topic structure with contextual sentence embeddings. The approach combines TF-IDF with topic modeling and dimensionality reduction, using Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to encode latent topical organization, and fuses these representations with a compact contextual encoder (all-MiniLM). By jointly capturing term-level and topic-level semantics, topic-enriched embeddings improve semantic clustering, increase retrieval precision, and reduce computational burden relative to purely contextual baselines. Experiments on a legal-text corpus show consistent gains in clustering coherence and retrieval metrics, suggesting that topic-enriched embeddings can serve as a practical component for more reliable knowledge-intensive RAG pipelines.
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.
In the face of adverse motives, it is indispensable to achieve a consensus. Elections have been the canonical way by which modern democracy has operated since the 17th century. Nowadays, they regulate markets, provide an engine for modern recommender systems or peer-to-peer networks, and remain the main approach to represent democracy. However, a desirable universal voting rule that satisfies all hypothetical scenarios is still a challenging topic, and the design of these systems is at the forefront of mechanism design research. Automated mechanism design is a promising approach, and recent works have demonstrated that set-invariant architectures are uniquely suited to modelling electoral systems. However, various concerns prevent the direct application to real-world settings, such as robustness to strategic voting. In this paper, we generalise the expressive capability of learned voting rules, and combine improvements in neural network architecture with adversarial training to improve the resilience of voting rules while maximizing social welfare. We evaluate the effectiveness of our methods on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Our method resolves critical limitations of prior work regarding learning voting rules by representing elections using bipartite graphs, and learning such voting rules using graph neural networks. We believe this opens new frontiers for applying machine learning to real-world elections.
Topic segmentation using generative Large Language Models (LLMs) remains relatively unexplored. Previous methods use semantic similarity between sentences, but such models lack the long range dependencies and vast knowledge found in LLMs. In this work, we propose an overlapping and recursive prompting strategy using sentence enumeration. We also support the adoption of the boundary similarity evaluation metric. Results show that LLMs can be more effective segmenters than existing methods, but issues remain to be solved before they can be relied upon for topic segmentation.
As generative AI systems become integrated into real-world applications, organizations increasingly need to be able to understand and interpret their behavior. In particular, decision-makers need to understand what causes generative AI systems to exhibit specific output characteristics. Within this general topic, this paper examines a key question: what is it about the input -- the prompt -- that causes an LLM-based generative AI system to produce output that exhibits specific characteristics, such as toxicity, negative sentiment, or political bias. To examine this question, we adapt a common technique from the Explainable AI literature: counterfactual explanations. We explain why traditional counterfactual explanations cannot be applied directly to generative AI systems, due to several differences in how generative AI systems function. We then propose a flexible framework that adapts counterfactual explanations to non-deterministic, generative AI systems in scenarios where downstream classifiers can reveal key characteristics of their outputs. Based on this framework, we introduce an algorithm for generating prompt-counterfactual explanations (PCEs). Finally, we demonstrate the production of counterfactual explanations for generative AI systems with three case studies, examining different output characteristics (viz., political leaning, toxicity, and sentiment). The case studies further show that PCEs can streamline prompt engineering to suppress undesirable output characteristics and can enhance red-teaming efforts to uncover additional prompts that elicit undesirable outputs. Ultimately, this work lays a foundation for prompt-focused interpretability in generative AI: a capability that will become indispensable as these models are entrusted with higher-stakes tasks and subject to emerging regulatory requirements for transparency and accountability.
Understanding affective polarization in online discourse is crucial for evaluating the societal impact of social media interactions. This study presents a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) and domain-informed heuristics to systematically analyze and quantify affective polarization in discussions on divisive topics such as climate change and gun control. Unlike most prior approaches that relied on sentiment analysis or predefined classifiers, our method integrates LLMs to extract stance, affective tone, and agreement patterns from large-scale social media discussions. We then apply a rule-based scoring system capable of quantifying affective polarization even in small conversations consisting of single interactions, based on stance alignment, emotional content, and interaction dynamics. Our analysis reveals distinct polarization patterns that are event dependent: (i) anticipation-driven polarization, where extreme polarization escalates before well-publicized events, and (ii) reactive polarization, where intense affective polarization spikes immediately after sudden, high-impact events. By combining AI-driven content annotation with domain-informed scoring, our framework offers a scalable and interpretable approach to measuring affective polarization. The source code is publicly available at: https://github.com/hasanjawad001/llm-social-media-polarization.