A Model of Multi-turn Human Persuadability Using Probabilistic Belief Tracing

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

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.

Do Neural Retrievers Prefer Certain Documents? Evidence of Learned Relevance Priors

Neural retrievers are trained to estimate query-document relevance from annotated query-document pairs. Yet annotation protocols may not purely reflect relevance: they select only a subset of documents for labeling, and this selection can favor certain document types over others. We investigate whether supervised bi-encoder retrievers implicitly learn a document-level relevance prior: a query-independent signal encoded in their representation space as a side effect of training on annotated data. We estimate this prior by training simple classifiers on frozen document embeddings and evaluate three state-of-the-art retrievers across multiple IR benchmarks. We find that supervised neural retrievers encode relevance priors that generalize to unseen documents and are consistent across models. These priors create a findability gap: documents with lower prior are systematically harder to retrieve, even when genuinely relevant. This effect appears in supervised dense retrievers but is weaker and less consistent in BM25, and it persists under controlled matched-document comparisons. Using LLM-based explanations, we find that judged-relevant documents tend to be comprehensive, self-contained summaries of mainstream topics, while niche, fragmentary, or highly technical content is often left unjudged. Retrievers internalize this bias, ranking documents with these favored features higher than documents that lack them, independently of their actual relevance. Our findings expose a structural limitation of supervised retrieval: models trained on annotated data do not just learn relevance, but also the implicit document preferences in their training data.

VidMsg: A Benchmark for Implicit Message Inference in Short Videos

Understanding short online videos involves more than identifying visible objects and actions; video makers often include an underlying message or purpose in the clip. We introduce VidMsg, a benchmark for evaluating implicit message understanding in short, internet-native video clips. VidMsg contains 400 YouTube-derived clips across 9 practical topic areas and 52 fine-grained target messages, covering domains such as career and finance, education, health and well-being, culture, safety, sustainability, and lifestyle. VidMsg is constructed through a message-first pipeline: an LLM first translates target messages into indirect search scenarios, which are used to retrieve candidate clips. Human annotators then retain clips that convey the intended message without being overly explicit. VidMsg is designed primarily for bidirectional message-clip retrieval for scalable applications such as video search and recommendation, where systems must capture holistic video understanding. In addition to retrieval, VidMsg includes a diagnostic multiple-choice QA benchmark, where models select the intended message of a clip from semantically related alternatives. Experiments with contemporary video-language and retrieval models show that strong models often fail on VidMsg, because the task requires pragmatic inference, integration of contextual cues, and discrimination among semantically close messages. We also introduce VidVec-Msg, a baseline method that improves message-oriented retrieval while leaving substantial headroom for future work.

Slogans or Stance? A Label-Light Diagnostic for Entrepreneurial-Discourse Measurement on Chinese SOE Speeches

Dictionary methods, topic models, and embedding-similarity scorers are widely used in CSS and management research to measure constructs such as "entrepreneurial spirit" in corporate speeches. We contribute a label-light measurement diagnostic for such instruments rather than a new extraction model. On a corpus of 80 speeches by leaders of centrally administered Chinese state-owned enterprises, we exploit a natural experiment of 24 same-company different-speaker pairs and 5 same-company same-speaker pairs to test whether a method's per-document indices vary with leader identity holding firm constant. LDA fails (Cohen d=0.20, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.20]); a dictionary scorer reaches d=0.81 and a Chinese sentence encoder d=0.65 on doc-vector distances of order 10^-3. A zero-shot 9B open-weight LLM (Qwen3.5:9b) raises paired-contrast d to 1.09 (exact permutation p1=0.034). We downgrade three claims accordingly: gold F1 measures consistency with the LLM's own prompt rule rather than external construct recovery; doc-level style residualisation cuts the LLM's d to 0.43 (p1=0.22), so roughly half of the effect is consistent with leader idiolect; and a confidence-weighted calibration trades Delta for variance with an auto-mined slogan lexicon near-inert in ablation. We release the 2,190-segment scored corpus, the 170-paragraph pilot, the slogan lexicon, two-family LLM scores, and the evaluation harness.

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.

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.

ProjectionBench: Evaluating Scientific Hypothesis Generation in LLMs Under Progressive Information Disclosure

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

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.

LaSR: Context-Aware Speech Recognition via Latent Reasoning

Recent advances in Speech Large Language Models (Speech LLMs) have significantly enhanced spoken language understanding and reasoning. However, their contextual awareness is limited, struggling to perform speech recognition that effectively reflects the speaker's intent and topical context. In this paper, we propose LaSR (Latent Speech Reasoning), a novel training paradigm featuring a context-aware reasoning trajectory that leverages the latent reasoning process. Instead of generating explicit intermediate tokens, LaSR aligns chain-of-thought (CoT) supervision around the acoustic feature region of the targeted word, and introduces latent reasoning periods for context information grounding and transcriptional transition. Furthermore, to effectively benchmark contextual recognition on specialized vocabulary, we propose Spoken Darwin-Science, a large-scale corpus focusing on academic terminologies. Preliminary experiments on Fun-Audio-Chat demonstrate that LaSR significantly improves terminology recognition without introducing additional latency and consistently outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning baselines. Our findings highlight the potential of latent reasoning in building efficient, context-aware speech assistants.