pwc-archive/papers-with-abstracts huggingface dataset:
Community Moderation and the New Epistemology of Fact Checking on Social Media
Authors: Isabelle Augenstein, Michiel Bakker, Tanmoy Chakraborty, David Corney, Emilio Ferrara, Iryna Gurevych, Scott Hale, Eduard Hovy, Heng Ji, Irene Larraz, Filippo Menczer, Preslav Nakov, Paolo Papotti, Dhruv Sahnan, Greta Warren, Giovanni Zagni
Date: 2025-05-26 00:00:00
Tasks: Fact Checking, Misinformation

Social media platforms have traditionally relied on internal moderation teams and partnerships with independent fact-checking organizations to identify and flag misleading content. Recently, however, platforms including X (formerly Twitter) and Meta have shifted towards community-driven content moderation by launching their own versions of crowd-sourced fact-checking -- Community Notes. If effectively scaled and governed, such crowd-checking initiatives have the potential to combat misinformation with increased scale and speed as successfully as community-driven efforts once did with spam. Nevertheless, general content moderation, especially for misinformation, is inherently more complex. Public perceptions of truth are often shaped by personal biases, political leanings, and cultural contexts, complicating consensus on what constitutes misleading content. This suggests that community efforts, while valuable, cannot replace the indispensable role of professional fact-checkers. Here we systemically examine the current approaches to misinformation detection across major platforms, explore the emerging role of community-driven moderation, and critically evaluate both the promises and challenges of crowd-checking at scale.
Embracing Imperfection: Simulating Students with Diverse Cognitive Levels Using LLM-based Agents
Authors: Tao Wu, Jingyuan Chen, Wang Lin, Mengze Li, Yumeng Zhu, Ang Li, Kun Kuang, Fei Wu
Date: 2025-05-26 00:00:00

Large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing education, with LLM-based agents playing a key role in simulating student behavior. A major challenge in student simulation is modeling the diverse learning patterns of students at various cognitive levels. However, current LLMs, typically trained as ``helpful assistants'', target at generating perfect responses. As a result, they struggle to simulate students with diverse cognitive abilities, as they often produce overly advanced answers, missing the natural imperfections that characterize student learning and resulting in unrealistic simulations. To address this issue, we propose a training-free framework for student simulation. We begin by constructing a cognitive prototype for each student using a knowledge graph, which captures their understanding of concepts from past learning records. This prototype is then mapped to new tasks to predict student performance. Next, we simulate student solutions based on these predictions and iteratively refine them using a beam search method to better replicate realistic mistakes. To validate our approach, we construct the \texttt{Student\_100} dataset, consisting of $100$ students working on Python programming and $5,000$ learning records. Experimental results show that our method consistently outperforms baseline models, achieving $100\%$ improvement in simulation accuracy.
AI Agents Should be Regulated Based on the Extent of Their Autonomous Operations
Authors: Takayuki Osogami
Date: 2025-02-07 00:00:00
Tasks: Position

This position paper argues that AI agents should be regulated by the extent to which they operate autonomously. AI agents with long-term planning and strategic capabilities can pose significant risks of human extinction and irreversible global catastrophes. While existing regulations often focus on computational scale as a proxy for potential harm, we argue that such measures are insufficient for assessing the risks posed by agents whose capabilities arise primarily from inference-time computation. To support our position, we discuss relevant regulations and recommendations from scientists regarding existential risks, as well as the advantages of using action sequences -- which reflect the degree of an agent's autonomy -- as a more suitable measure of potential impact than existing metrics that rely on observing environmental states.
EuroCon: Benchmarking Parliament Deliberation for Political Consensus Finding
Authors: Zhaowei Zhang, Minghua Yi, Mengmeng Wang, Fengshuo Bai, Zilong Zheng, Yipeng Kang, Yaodong Yang
Date: 2025-05-26 00:00:00
Tasks: Benchmarking

Achieving political consensus is crucial yet challenging for the effective functioning of social governance. However, although frontier AI systems represented by large language models (LLMs) have developed rapidly in recent years, their capabilities on this scope are still understudied. In this paper, we introduce EuroCon, a novel benchmark constructed from 2,225 high-quality deliberation records of the European Parliament over 13 years, ranging from 2009 to 2022, to evaluate the ability of LLMs to reach political consensus among divergent party positions across diverse parliament settings. Specifically, EuroCon incorporates four factors to build each simulated parliament setting: specific political issues, political goals, participating parties, and power structures based on seat distribution. We also develop an evaluation framework for EuroCon to simulate real voting outcomes in different parliament settings, assessing whether LLM-generated resolutions meet predefined political goals. Our experimental results demonstrate that even state-of-the-art models remain undersatisfied with complex tasks like passing resolutions by a two-thirds majority and addressing security issues, while revealing some common strategies LLMs use to find consensus under different power structures, such as prioritizing the stance of the dominant party, highlighting EuroCon's promise as an effective platform for studying LLMs' ability to find political consensus.
AmpleHate: Amplifying the Attention for Versatile Implicit Hate Detection
Authors: Yejin Lee, Joonghyuk Hahn, Hyeseon Ahn, Yo-Sub Han
Date: 2025-05-26 00:00:00
Tasks: Contrastive Learning, Hate Speech Detection, named-entity-recognition, Named Entity Recognition, Sentence

Implicit hate speech detection is challenging due to its subtlety and reliance on contextual interpretation rather than explicit offensive words. Current approaches rely on contrastive learning, which are shown to be effective on distinguishing hate and non-hate sentences. Humans, however, detect implicit hate speech by first identifying specific targets within the text and subsequently interpreting how these target relate to their surrounding context. Motivated by this reasoning process, we propose AmpleHate, a novel approach designed to mirror human inference for implicit hate detection. AmpleHate identifies explicit target using a pretrained Named Entity Recognition model and capture implicit target information via [CLS] tokens. It computes attention-based relationships between explicit, implicit targets and sentence context and then, directly injects these relational vectors into the final sentence representation. This amplifies the critical signals of target-context relations for determining implicit hate. Experiments demonstrate that AmpleHate achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming contrastive learning baselines by an average of 82.14% and achieve faster convergence. Qualitative analyses further reveal that attention patterns produced by AmpleHate closely align with human judgement, underscoring its interpretability and robustness.
Fairness Practices in Industry: A Case Study in Machine Learning Teams Building Recommender Systems
Authors: Jing Nathan Yan, Junxiong Wang, Jeffrey M. Rzeszotarski, Allison Koenecke
Date: 2025-05-26 00:00:00
Tasks: Fairness, Recommendation Systems

The rapid proliferation of recommender systems necessitates robust fairness practices to address inherent biases. Assessing fairness, though, is challenging due to constantly evolving metrics and best practices. This paper analyzes how industry practitioners perceive and incorporate these changing fairness standards in their workflows. Through semi-structured interviews with 11 practitioners from technical teams across a range of large technology companies, we investigate industry implementations of fairness in recommendation system products. We focus on current debiasing practices, applied metrics, collaborative strategies, and integrating academic research into practice. Findings show a preference for multi-dimensional debiasing over traditional demographic methods, and a reliance on intuitive rather than academic metrics. This study also highlights the difficulties in balancing fairness with both the practitioner's individual (bottom-up) roles and organizational (top-down) workplace constraints, including the interplay with legal and compliance experts. Finally, we offer actionable recommendations for the recommender system community and algorithmic fairness practitioners, underlining the need to refine fairness practices continually.
Recalibrating the Compass: Integrating Large Language Models into Classical Research Methods
Authors: Tai-Quan Peng, Xuzhen Yang
Date: 2025-05-26 00:00:00
Tasks: counterfactual, Trajectory Modeling

This paper examines how large language models (LLMs) are transforming core quantitative methods in communication research in particular, and in the social sciences more broadly-namely, content analysis, survey research, and experimental studies. Rather than replacing classical approaches, LLMs introduce new possibilities for coding and interpreting text, simulating dynamic respondents, and generating personalized and interactive stimuli. Drawing on recent interdisciplinary work, the paper highlights both the potential and limitations of LLMs as research tools, including issues of validity, bias, and interpretability. To situate these developments theoretically, the paper revisits Lasswell's foundational framework -- "Who says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect?" -- and demonstrates how LLMs reconfigure message studies, audience analysis, and effects research by enabling interpretive variation, audience trajectory modeling, and counterfactual experimentation. Revisiting the metaphor of the methodological compass, the paper argues that classical research logics remain essential as the field integrates LLMs and generative AI. By treating LLMs not only as technical instruments but also as epistemic and cultural tools, the paper calls for thoughtful, rigorous, and imaginative use of LLMs in future communication and social science research.
Architectures of Error: A Philosophical Inquiry into AI and Human Code Generation
Authors: Camilo Chacón Sartori
Date: 2025-05-25 00:00:00
Tasks: Code Generation

With the rise of generative AI (GenAI), Large Language Models are increasingly employed for code generation, becoming active co-authors alongside human programmers. Focusing specifically on this application domain, this paper articulates distinct ``Architectures of Error'' to ground an epistemic distinction between human and machine code generation. Examined through their shared vulnerability to error, this distinction reveals fundamentally different causal origins: human-cognitive versus artificial-stochastic. To develop this framework and substantiate the distinction, the analysis draws critically upon Dennett's mechanistic functionalism and Rescher's methodological pragmatism. I argue that a systematic differentiation of these error profiles raises critical philosophical questions concerning semantic coherence, security robustness, epistemic limits, and control mechanisms in human-AI collaborative software development. The paper also utilizes Floridi's levels of abstraction to provide a nuanced understanding of how these error dimensions interact and may evolve with technological advancements. This analysis aims to offer philosophers a structured framework for understanding GenAI's unique epistemological challenges, shaped by these architectural foundations, while also providing software engineers a basis for more critically informed engagement.
Effort-aware Fairness: Incorporating a Philosophy-informed, Human-centered Notion of Effort into Algorithmic Fairness Metrics
Authors: Tin Nguyen, Jiannan Xu, Zora Che, Phuong-Anh Nguyen-Le, Rushil Dandamudi, Donald Braman, Furong Huang, Hal Daumé III, Zubin Jelveh
Date: 2025-05-25 00:00:00
Tasks: Decision Making, Fairness, Philosophy

Although popularized AI fairness metrics, e.g., demographic parity, have uncovered bias in AI-assisted decision-making outcomes, they do not consider how much effort one has spent to get to where one is today in the input feature space. However, the notion of effort is important in how Philosophy and humans understand fairness. We propose a philosophy-informed way to conceptualize and evaluate Effort-aware Fairness (EaF) based on the concept of Force, or temporal trajectory of predictive features coupled with inertia. In addition to our theoretical formulation of EaF metrics, our empirical contributions include: 1/ a pre-registered human subjects experiment, which demonstrates that for both stages of the (individual) fairness evaluation process, people consider the temporal trajectory of a predictive feature more than its aggregate value; 2/ pipelines to compute Effort-aware Individual/Group Fairness in the criminal justice and personal finance contexts. Our work may enable AI model auditors to uncover and potentially correct unfair decisions against individuals who spent significant efforts to improve but are still stuck with systemic/early-life disadvantages outside their control.
Using Large Language Models to Assess Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Authors: Yaxuan Yang, Shiyu Wang, Xiaoming Zhai
Date: 2025-05-25 00:00:00

Assessing teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) through performance-based tasks is both time and effort-consuming. While large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for efficient automatic scoring, little is known about whether LLMs introduce construct-irrelevant variance (CIV) in ways similar to or different from traditional machine learning (ML) and human raters. This study examines three sources of CIV -- scenario variability, rater severity, and rater sensitivity to scenario -- in the context of video-based constructed-response tasks targeting two PCK sub-constructs: analyzing student thinking and evaluating teacher responsiveness. Using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), we compared variance components and rater-level scoring patterns across three scoring sources: human raters, supervised ML, and LLM. Results indicate that scenario-level variance was minimal across tasks, while rater-related factors contributed substantially to CIV, especially in the more interpretive Task II. The ML model was the most severe and least sensitive rater, whereas the LLM was the most lenient. These findings suggest that the LLM contributes to scoring efficiency while also introducing CIV as human raters do, yet with varying levels of contribution compared to supervised ML. Implications for rater training, automated scoring design, and future research on model interpretability are discussed.
DeCoDe: Defer-and-Complement Decision-Making via Decoupled Concept Bottleneck Models
Authors: Chengbo He, Bochao Zou, Junliang Xing, Jiansheng Chen, Yuanchun Shi, Huimin Ma
Date: 2025-05-25 00:00:00
Tasks: Decision Making

In human-AI collaboration, a central challenge is deciding whether the AI should handle a task, be deferred to a human expert, or be addressed through collaborative effort. Existing Learning to Defer approaches typically make binary choices between AI and humans, neglecting their complementary strengths. They also lack interpretability, a critical property in high-stakes scenarios where users must understand and, if necessary, correct the model's reasoning. To overcome these limitations, we propose Defer-and-Complement Decision-Making via Decoupled Concept Bottleneck Models (DeCoDe), a concept-driven framework for human-AI collaboration. DeCoDe makes strategy decisions based on human-interpretable concept representations, enhancing transparency throughout the decision process. It supports three flexible modes: autonomous AI prediction, deferral to humans, and human-AI collaborative complementarity, selected via a gating network that takes concept-level inputs and is trained using a novel surrogate loss that balances accuracy and human effort. This approach enables instance-specific, interpretable, and adaptive human-AI collaboration. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that DeCoDe significantly outperforms AI-only, human-only, and traditional deferral baselines, while maintaining strong robustness and interpretability even under noisy expert annotations.
When Ethics and Payoffs Diverge: LLM Agents in Morally Charged Social Dilemmas
Authors: Steffen Backmann, David Guzman Piedrahita, Emanuel Tewolde, Rada Mihalcea, Bernhard Schölkopf, Zhijing Jin
Date: 2025-05-25 00:00:00
Tasks: Ethics, Navigate

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents, making ethical alignment a key AI safety concern. While prior work has examined both LLMs' moral judgment and strategic behavior in social dilemmas, there is limited understanding of how they act when moral imperatives directly conflict with rewards or incentives. To investigate this, we introduce Moral Behavior in Social Dilemma Simulation (MoralSim) and evaluate how LLMs behave in the prisoner's dilemma and public goods game with morally charged contexts. In MoralSim, we test a range of frontier models across both game structures and three distinct moral framings, enabling a systematic examination of how LLMs navigate social dilemmas in which ethical norms conflict with payoff-maximizing strategies. Our results show substantial variation across models in both their general tendency to act morally and the consistency of their behavior across game types, the specific moral framing, and situational factors such as opponent behavior and survival risks. Crucially, no model exhibits consistently moral behavior in MoralSim, highlighting the need for caution when deploying LLMs in agentic roles where the agent's "self-interest" may conflict with ethical expectations. Our code is available at https://github.com/sbackmann/moralsim.
Language Models Surface the Unwritten Code of Science and Society
Authors: Honglin Bao, Siyang Wu, Jiwoong Choi, Yingrong Mao, James A. Evans
Date: 2025-05-25 00:00:00
Tasks: Diagnostic

This paper calls on the research community not only to investigate how human biases are inherited by large language models (LLMs) but also to explore how these biases in LLMs can be leveraged to make society's "unwritten code" - such as implicit stereotypes and heuristics - visible and accessible for critique. We introduce a conceptual framework through a case study in science: uncovering hidden rules in peer review - the factors that reviewers care about but rarely state explicitly due to normative scientific expectations. The idea of the framework is to push LLMs to speak out their heuristics through generating self-consistent hypotheses - why one paper appeared stronger in reviewer scoring - among paired papers submitted to 45 computer science conferences, while iteratively searching deeper hypotheses from remaining pairs where existing hypotheses cannot explain. We observed that LLMs' normative priors about the internal characteristics of good science extracted from their self-talk, e.g. theoretical rigor, were systematically updated toward posteriors that emphasize storytelling about external connections, such as how the work is positioned and connected within and across literatures. This shift reveals the primacy of scientific myths about intrinsic properties driving scientific excellence rather than extrinsic contextualization and storytelling that influence conceptions of relevance and significance. Human reviewers tend to explicitly reward aspects that moderately align with LLMs' normative priors (correlation = 0.49) but avoid articulating contextualization and storytelling posteriors in their review comments (correlation = -0.14), despite giving implicit reward to them with positive scores. We discuss the broad applicability of the framework, leveraging LLMs as diagnostic tools to surface the tacit codes underlying human society, enabling more precisely targeted responsible AI.
Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effects
Authors: Reva Schwartz, Rumman Chowdhury, Akash Kundu, Heather Frase, Marzieh Fadaee, Tom David, Gabriella Waters, Afaf Taik, Morgan Briggs, Patrick Hall, Shomik Jain, Kyra Yee, Spencer Thomas, Sundeep Bhandari, Paul Duncan, Andrew Thompson, Maya Carlyle, Qinghua Lu, Matthew Holmes, Theodora Skeadas
Date: 2025-05-24 00:00:00

Conventional AI evaluation approaches concentrated within the AI stack exhibit systemic limitations for exploring, navigating and resolving the human and societal factors that play out in real world deployment such as in education, finance, healthcare, and employment sectors. AI capability evaluations can capture detail about first-order effects, such as whether immediate system outputs are accurate, or contain toxic, biased or stereotypical content, but AI's second-order effects, i.e. any long-term outcomes and consequences that may result from AI use in the real world, have become a significant area of interest as the technology becomes embedded in our daily lives. These secondary effects can include shifts in user behavior, societal, cultural and economic ramifications, workforce transformations, and long-term downstream impacts that may result from a broad and growing set of risks. This position paper argues that measuring the indirect and secondary effects of AI will require expansion beyond static, single-turn approaches conducted in silico to include testing paradigms that can capture what actually materializes when people use AI technology in context. Specifically, we describe the need for data and methods that can facilitate contextual awareness and enable downstream interpretation and decision making about AI's secondary effects, and recommend requirements for a new ecosystem.
Climate Implications of Diffusion-based Generative Visual AI Systems and their Mass Adoption
Authors: Vanessa Utz, Steve DiPaola
Date: 2025-05-24 00:00:00
Tasks: GPU

Climate implications of rapidly developing digital technologies, such as blockchains and the associated crypto mining and NFT minting, have been well documented and their massive GPU energy use has been identified as a cause for concern. However, we postulate that due to their more mainstream consumer appeal, the GPU use of text-prompt based diffusion AI art systems also requires thoughtful considerations. Given the recent explosion in the number of highly sophisticated generative art systems and their rapid adoption by consumers and creative professionals, the impact of these systems on the climate needs to be carefully considered. In this work, we report on the growth of diffusion-based visual AI systems, their patterns of use, growth and the implications on the climate. Our estimates show that the mass adoption of these tools potentially contributes considerably to global energy consumption. We end this paper with our thoughts on solutions and future areas of inquiry as well as associated difficulties, including the lack of publicly available data.