I often wake up before dawn, ahead of my wife and kids, so that I can enjoy a little solitary time. I creep downstairs to the silent kitchen, drink a glass of water, and put in my AirPods. Then I choose some music, set up the coffee maker, and sit and listen while the coffee brews. It's in this liminal state that my encounter with the algorithm begins. Groggily, I'll scroll through some dad content on Reddit, or watch photography videos on YouTube, or check Apple News.

The affective attitude of liking a recommended item reflects just one category in a wide spectrum of affective phenomena that also includes emotions such as entranced or intrigued, moods such as cheerful or buoyant, as well as more fine-grained affective states, such as "pleasantly surprised by the conclusion". In this paper, we introduce a novel recommendation task that can leverage a virtually unbounded range of affective states sought explicitly by the user in order to identify items that, upon consumption, are likely to induce those affective states. Correspondingly, we create a large dataset of user preferences containing expressions of fine-grained affective states that are mined from book reviews, and propose a Transformer-based architecture that leverages such affective expressions as input. We then use the resulting dataset of affective states preferences, together with the linked users and their histories of book readings, ratings, and reviews, to train and evaluate multiple recommendation models on the task of matching recommended items with affective preferences. Experiments show that the best results are obtained by models that can utilize textual descriptions of items and user affective preferences.

--Detecting hate speech in non-direct forms, such as irony, sarcasm, and innuendos, remains a persistent challenge for social networks. Although sarcasm and hate speech are regarded as distinct expressions, our work explores whether integrating sarcasm as a pre-training step improves implicit hate speech detection and, by extension, explicit hate speech detection. Incorporating samples from ETHOS, Sarcasm on Reddit, and Implicit Hate Corpus, we devised two training strategies to compare the effectiveness of sarcasm pre-training on a CNN+LSTM and BERT+BiLSTM model. The first strategy is a single-step training approach, where a model trained only on sarcasm is then tested on hate speech. The second strategy uses sequential transfer learning to fine-tune models for sarcasm, implicit hate, and explicit hate. Our results show that sarcasm pre-training improved the BERT+BiLSTM's recall by 9.7%, AUC by 7.8%, and F1-score by 6% on ETHOS. On the Implicit Hate Corpus, precision increased by 7.8% when tested only on implicit samples. By incorporating sarcasm into the training process, we show that models can more effectively detect both implicit and explicit hate. Note: This paper contains offensive and derogatory language shown only for demonstration. A key challenge in specialized machine learning is the lack of sufficient data for a given task.

Entities in discourse vary broadly in salience: main participants, objects and locations are noticeable and memorable, while tangential ones are less important and quickly forgotten, raising questions about how humans signal and infer relative salience. Using a graded operationalization of salience based on summary-worthiness in multiple summaries of a discourse, this paper explores data from 24 spoken and written genres of English to extract a multifactorial complex of overt and implicit linguistic cues, such as recurring subjecthood or definiteness, discourse relations and hierarchy across utterances, as well as pragmatic functional inferences based on genre and communicative intent. Tackling the question 'how is the degree of salience expressed for each and every entity mentioned?' our results show that while previous approaches to salience all correlate with our salience scores to some extent, no single generalization is without exceptions, and the phenomenon cuts across all levels of linguistic representation.

With the rapid evolution of technology and the Internet, the proliferation of fake news on social media has become a critical issue, leading to widespread misinformation that can cause societal harm. Traditional fact checking methods are often too slow to prevent the dissemination of false information. Therefore, the need for rapid, automated detection of fake news is paramount. We introduce DaCFake, a novel fake news detection model using a divide and conquer strategy that combines content and context based features. Our approach extracts over eighty linguistic features from news articles and integrates them with either a continuous bag of words or a skipgram model for enhanced detection accuracy. We evaluated the performance of DaCFake on three datasets including Kaggle, McIntire + PolitiFact, and Reuter achieving impressive accuracy rates of 97.88%, 96.05%, and 97.32%, respectively. Additionally, we employed a ten-fold cross validation to further enhance the model's robustness and accuracy. These results highlight the effectiveness of DaCFake in early detection of fake news, offering a promising solution to curb misinformation on social media platforms.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant progress in Open-domain question answering (ODQA), yet most evaluations focus on English and assume locale-invariant answers across languages. This assumption neglects the cultural and regional variations that affect question understanding and answer, leading to biased evaluation in multilingual benchmarks. To address these limitations, we introduce XLQA, a novel benchmark explicitly designed for locale-sensitive multilingual ODQA. XLQA contains 3,000 English seed questions expanded to eight languages, with careful filtering for semantic consistency and human-verified annotations distinguishing locale-invariant and locale-sensitive cases. Our evaluation of five state-of-the-art multilingual LLMs reveals notable failures on locale-sensitive questions, exposing gaps between English and other languages due to a lack of locale-grounding knowledge. We provide a systematic framework and scalable methodology for assessing multilingual QA under diverse cultural contexts, offering a critical resource to advance the real-world applicability of multilingual ODQA systems. Our findings suggest that disparities in training data distribution contribute to differences in both linguistic competence and locale-awareness across models.

Biased news contributes to societal polarization and is often reinforced by hostile reader comments, constituting a vital yet often overlooked aspect of news dissemination. Our study reveals that offensive comments support biased content, amplifying bias and causing harm to targeted groups or individuals. Counterspeech is an effective approach to counter such harmful speech without violating freedom of speech, helping to limit the spread of bias. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore counterspeech generation in the context of news articles. We introduce a manually annotated dataset linking media bias, offensive comments, and counterspeech. We conduct a detailed analysis showing that over 70\% offensive comments support biased articles, amplifying bias and thus highlighting the importance of counterspeech generation. Comparing counterspeech generated by humans and large language models, we find model-generated responses are more polite but lack the novelty and diversity. Finally, we improve generated counterspeech through few-shot learning and integration of news background information, enhancing both diversity and relevance.

Warning: This research studies AI persuasion and bias amplification that could be misused; all experiments are for safety evaluation. Large Language Models (LLMs) now generate convincing, human-like text and are widely used in content creation, decision support, and user interactions. Yet the same systems can spread information or misinformation at scale and reflect social biases that arise from data, architecture, or training choices. This work examines how persuasion and bias interact in LLMs, focusing on how imperfect or skewed outputs affect persuasive impact. Specifically, we test whether persona-based models can persuade with fact-based claims while also, unintentionally, promoting misinformation or biased narratives. We introduce a convincer-skeptic framework: LLMs adopt personas to simulate realistic attitudes. Skeptic models serve as human proxies; we compare their beliefs before and after exposure to arguments from convincer models. Persuasion is quantified with Jensen-Shannon divergence over belief distributions. We then ask how much persuaded entities go on to reinforce and amplify biased beliefs across race, gender, and religion. Strong persuaders are further probed for bias using sycophantic adversarial prompts and judged with additional models. Our findings show both promise and risk. LLMs can shape narratives, adapt tone, and mirror audience values across domains such as psychology, marketing, and legal assistance. But the same capacity can be weaponized to automate misinformation or craft messages that exploit cognitive biases, reinforcing stereotypes and widening inequities. The core danger lies in misuse more than in occasional model mistakes. By measuring persuasive power and bias reinforcement, we argue for guardrails and policies that penalize deceptive use and support alignment, value-sensitive design, and trustworthy deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) face challenges in knowledge-intensive reasoning tasks like classic multi-hop question and answering, which involves reasoning across multiple facts. This difficulty arises because the chain of thoughts (CoTs) generated by LLMs in such tasks often deviate from real or a priori reasoning paths. In contrast, knowledge graphs (KGs) explicitly represent the logical connections between facts through entities and relationships. This reflects a significant gap. Meanwhile, large reasoning models (LRMs), such as o1, have demonstrated that long-step reasoning significantly enhances the performance of LLMs. Building on these insights, we propose KG-o1, a four-stage approach that integrates KGs to enhance the multi-hop reasoning abilities of LLMs. We first filter out initial entities and generate complex subgraphs. Secondly, we construct logical paths for subgraphs and then use knowledge graphs to build a dataset with a complex and extended brainstorming process, which trains LLMs to imitate long-term reasoning. Finally, we employ rejection sampling to generate a self-improving corpus for direct preference optimization (DPO), further refining the LLMs reasoning abilities. We conducted experiments on two simple and two complex datasets. The results show that KG-o1 models exhibit superior performance across all tasks compared to existing LRMs.

Plan-guided summarization attempts to reduce hallucinations in small language models (SLMs) by grounding generated summaries to the source text, typically by targeting fine-grained details such as dates or named entities. In this work, we investigate whether plan-based approaches in SLMs improve summarization in long document, narrative tasks. Narrative texts' length and complexity often mean they are difficult to summarize faithfully. We analyze existing plan-guided solutions targeting fine-grained details, and also propose our own higher-level, narrative-based plan formulation. Our results show that neither approach significantly improves on a baseline without planning in either summary quality or faithfulness. Human evaluation reveals that while plan-guided approaches are often well grounded to their plan, plans are equally likely to contain hallucinations compared to summaries. As a result, the plan-guided summaries are just as unfaithful as those from models without planning. Our work serves as a cautionary tale to plan-guided approaches to summarization, especially for long, complex domains such as narrative texts. Code available at https://github.com/amazon-science/plan-guided-summarization