Existing research primarily evaluates the values of LLMs by examining their stated inclinations towards specific values. However, the "Value-Action Gap," a phenomenon rooted in environmental and social psychology, reveals discrepancies between individuals' stated values and their actions in real-world contexts. To what extent do LLMs exhibit a similar gap between their stated values and their actions informed by those values? This study introduces ValueActionLens, an evaluation framework to assess the alignment between LLMs' stated values and their value-informed actions. The framework encompasses the generation of a dataset comprising 14.8k value-informed actions across twelve cultures and eleven social topics, and two tasks to evaluate how well LLMs' stated value inclinations and value-informed actions align across three different alignment measures. Extensive experiments reveal that the alignment between LLMs' stated values and actions is sub-optimal, varying significantly across scenarios and models. Analysis of misaligned results identifies potential harms from certain value-action gaps. To predict the value-action gaps, we also uncover that leveraging reasoned explanations improves performance. These findings underscore the risks of relying solely on the LLMs' stated values to predict their behaviors and emphasize the importance of context-aware evaluations of LLM values and value-action gaps.

Large language models (LLMs) are known to exhibit demographic biases, yet few studies systematically evaluate these biases across multiple datasets or account for confounding factors. In this work, we examine LLM alignment with human annotations in five offensive language datasets, comprising approximately 220K annotations. Our findings reveal that while demographic traits, particularly race, influence alignment, these effects are inconsistent across datasets and often entangled with other factors. Confounders -- such as document difficulty, annotator sensitivity, and within-group agreement -- account for more variation in alignment patterns than demographic traits alone. Specifically, alignment increases with higher annotator sensitivity and group agreement, while greater document difficulty corresponds to reduced alignment. Our results underscore the importance of multi-dataset analyses and confounder-aware methodologies in developing robust measures of demographic bias in LLMs.

This study introduces ValueScope, a framework leveraging language models to quantify social norms and values within online communities, grounded in social science perspectives on normative structures. We employ ValueScope to dissect and analyze linguistic and stylistic expressions across 13 Reddit communities categorized under gender, politics, science, and finance. Our analysis provides a quantitative foundation showing that even closely related communities exhibit remarkably diverse norms. This diversity supports existing theories and adds a new dimension--community preference--to understanding community interactions. ValueScope not only delineates differing social norms among communities but also effectively traces their evolution and the influence of significant external events like the U.S. presidential elections and the emergence of new sub-communities. The framework thus highlights the pivotal role of social norms in shaping online interactions, presenting a substantial advance in both the theory and application of social norm studies in digital spaces.

Generative AI appears poised to transform white collar professions, with more than 90% of Fortune 500 companies using OpenAI's flagship GPT models, which have been characterized as "general purpose technologies" capable of effecting epochal changes in the economy. But how will such technologies impact organizations whose job is to verify and report factual information, and to ensure the health of the information ecosystem? To investigate this question, we conducted 30 interviews with N=38 participants working at 29 fact-checking organizations across six continents, asking about how they use generative AI and the opportunities and challenges they see in the technology. We found that uses of generative AI envisioned by fact-checkers differ based on organizational infrastructure, with applications for quality assurance in Editing, for trend analysis in Investigation, and for information literacy in Advocacy. We used the TOE framework to describe participant concerns ranging from the Technological (lack of transparency), to the Organizational (resource constraints), to the Environmental (uncertain and evolving policy). Building on the insights of our participants, we describe value tensions between fact-checking and generative AI, and propose a novel Verification dimension to the design space of generative models for information verification work. Finally, we outline an agenda for fairness, accountability, and transparency research to support the responsible use of generative AI in fact-checking. Throughout, we highlight the importance of human infrastructure and labor in producing verified information in collaboration with AI. We expect that this work will inform not only the scientific literature on fact-checking, but also contribute to understanding of organizational adaptation to a powerful but unreliable new technology.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as an integral part of modern societies, powering user-facing applications such as personal assistants and enterprise applications like recruitment tools. Despite their utility, research indicates that LLMs perpetuate systemic biases. Yet, prior works on LLM harms predominantly focus on Western concepts like race and gender, often overlooking cultural concepts from other parts of the world. Additionally, these studies typically investigate "harm" as a singular dimension, ignoring the various and subtle forms in which harms manifest. To address this gap, we introduce the Covert Harms and Social Threats (CHAST), a set of seven metrics grounded in social science literature. We utilize evaluation models aligned with human assessments to examine the presence of covert harms in LLM-generated conversations, particularly in the context of recruitment. Our experiments reveal that seven out of the eight LLMs included in this study generated conversations riddled with CHAST, characterized by malign views expressed in seemingly neutral language unlikely to be detected by existing methods. Notably, these LLMs manifested more extreme views and opinions when dealing with non-Western concepts like caste, compared to Western ones such as race.

Narratives are fundamental to our understanding of the world, providing us with a natural structure for knowledge representation over time. Computational narrative extraction is a subfield of artificial intelligence that makes heavy use of information retrieval and natural language processing techniques. Despite the importance of computational narrative extraction, relatively little scholarly work exists on synthesizing previous research and strategizing future research in the area. In particular, this article focuses on extracting news narratives from an event-centric perspective. Extracting narratives from news data has multiple applications in understanding the evolving information landscape. This survey presents an extensive study of research in the area of event-based news narrative extraction. In particular, we screened over 900 articles that yielded 54 relevant articles. These articles are synthesized and organized by representation model, extraction criteria, and evaluation approaches. Based on the reviewed studies, we identify recent trends, open challenges, and potential research lines.

Narrative sensemaking is an essential part of understanding sequential data. Narrative maps are a visual representation model that can assist analysts to understand narratives. In this work, we present a semantic interaction (SI) framework for narrative maps that can support analysts through their sensemaking process. In contrast to traditional SI systems which rely on dimensionality reduction and work on a projection space, our approach has an additional abstraction layer -- the structure space -- that builds upon the projection space and encodes the narrative in a discrete structure. This extra layer introduces additional challenges that must be addressed when integrating SI with the narrative extraction pipeline. We address these challenges by presenting the general concept of Mixed Multi-Model Semantic Interaction (3MSI) -- an SI pipeline, where the highest-level model corresponds to an abstract discrete structure and the lower-level models are continuous. To evaluate the performance of our 3MSI models for narrative maps, we present a quantitative simulation-based evaluation and a qualitative evaluation with case studies and expert feedback. We find that our SI system can model the analysts' intent and support incremental formalism for narrative maps.

Narratives are fundamental to our perception of the world and are pervasive in all activities that involve the representation of events in time. Yet, modern online information systems do not incorporate narratives in their representation of events occurring over time. This article aims to bridge this gap, combining the theory of narrative representations with the data from modern online systems. We make three key contributions: a theory-driven computational representation of narratives, a novel extraction algorithm to obtain these representations from data, and an evaluation of our approach. In particular, given the effectiveness of visual metaphors, we employ a route map metaphor to design a narrative map representation. The narrative map representation illustrates the events and stories in the narrative as a series of landmarks and routes on the map. Each element of our representation is backed by a corresponding element from formal narrative theory, thus providing a solid theoretical background to our method. Our approach extracts the underlying graph structure of the narrative map using a novel optimization technique focused on maximizing coherence while respecting structural and coverage constraints. We showcase the effectiveness of our approach by performing a user evaluation to assess the quality of the representation, metaphor, and visualization. Evaluation results indicate that the Narrative Map representation is a powerful method to communicate complex narratives to individuals. Our findings have implications for intelligence analysts, computational journalists, and misinformation researchers.

We spend a significant part of our lives chatting about other people. In other words, we all gossip. Although sometimes a contentious topic, various researchers have shown gossip to be fundamental to social life—from small groups to large, formal organizations. In this paper, we present the first study of gossip in a large CMC corpus. Adopting the Enron email dataset and natural language techniques, we arrive at four main findings. First, workplace gossip is common at all levels of the organizational hierarchy, with people most likely to gossip with their peers. Moreover, employees at the lowest level play a major role in circulating it. Second, gossip appears as often in personal exchanges as it does in formal business communication. Third, by deriving a power-law relation, we show that it is more likely for an email to contain gossip if targeted to a smaller audience. Finally, we explore the sentiment associated with gossip email, finding that gossip is in fact quite often negative: 2.7 times more frequent than positive gossip.