arXiv subjects

Dirk Hovy

Publications and source records attributed to Dirk Hovy.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

WildSEEK: Evaluating Language Models for Information-Seeking

Language models are increasingly mediating information access to end users, urging a systematic evaluation of their responses for a fair and reliable information ecosystem. Existing evaluations, however, are often topic-specific or synthetic, limiting their ability to capture the complexity of "in the wild" information-seeking queries and the risks present in model responses. To address this gap, we introduce WildSEEK, a manually annotated dataset of 3k information-seeking queries from real user interactions, and an evaluation framework for LLM-generated responses. WildSEEK includes annotations for risk-sensitive domains (e.g. health and financial information), and distinguishes factoid queries from analytical queries which seek responses beyond facts. We train classifiers on WildSEEK to analyze more than 1.8M realistic user queries. We find that over a third of information-seeking queries are high-risk and more often analytical. Our findings show that LLM responses fail more often in four criteria: sycophantic behavior, overreliance, a default US-centric perspective, and poor handling of vulnerable populations -- with failure rates being mostly higher for analytical queries. By providing methods to monitor the reliability, safety, and fairness of LLM behavior, our dataset and evaluation framework offer an empirical foundation for the broader question of how these systems should behave as they take on a growing role in information access.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation

Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical comparison of human- versus AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews and an evaluation of the effect of automated paper rewriting on different AI reviewers. We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity. 2) AI review scores are trivially gameable through paper laundering: prompting an LLM to rewrite a paper could significantly increase the scores from AI reviewers, demonstrating that LLM reviewers are easy to game through stylistic changes rather than scientific results. However, non-gameability and review diversity are necessary but not sufficient conditions for automation. We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation -- not general-purpose LLMs deployed without rigorous evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Diffusion Language Models Are Natively Length-Aware

Unlike autoregressive language models, which terminate variable-length generation upon predicting an End-of-Sequence (EoS) token, Diffusion Language Models (DLMs) operate over a fixed maximum-length context window for a predetermined number of denoising steps. However, this process is independent of the required response length, resulting in computational waste for the majority of short responses common in reasoning and chat tasks. To address this problem, we conjecture that the latent prompt representation contains sufficient information to estimate the required output length. We provide empirical evidence for this phenomenon and propose a zero-shot mechanism to dynamically crop the context window before generation begins, leading to fewer diffusion steps and substantial computational savings. We evaluate our approach on four benchmarks with diverse tasks -- GSM8K (reasoning), HumanEval (code generation), IfEval (instruction following), and LongFormQA (question answering) -- revealing massive efficiency gains at minimal performance impact. We report significant reductions in FLOPs across all tasks, with no statistically significant performance degradation, and significant performance improvements in 2 out of 4 tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Models Adapt to Language Variation across Socioeconomic Status?

Humans adjust their linguistic style to the audience they are addressing. However, the extent to which LLMs adapt to different social contexts is largely unknown. As these models increasingly mediate human-to-human communication, their failure to adapt to diverse styles can perpetuate stereotypes and marginalize communities whose linguistic norms are less closely mirrored by the models, thereby reinforcing social stratification. We study the extent to which LLMs integrate into social media communication across different socioeconomic status (SES) communities. We collect a novel dataset from Reddit and YouTube, stratified by SES. We prompt four LLMs with incomplete text from that corpus and compare the LLM-generated completions to the originals along 94 sociolinguistic metrics, including syntactic, rhetorical, and lexical features. LLMs modulate their style with respect to SES to only a minor extent, often resulting in approximation or caricature, and tend to emulate the style of upper SES more effectively. Our findings (1) show how LLMs risk amplifying linguistic hierarchies and (2) call into question their validity for agent-based social simulation, survey experiments, and any research relying on language style as a social signal.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Responsible Evaluation of AI for Mental Health

Although artificial intelligence (AI) shows growing promise for mental health care, current approaches to evaluating AI tools in this domain remain fragmented and poorly aligned with clinical practice, social context, and first-hand user experience. This paper argues for a rethinking of responsible evaluation -- what is measured, by whom, and for what purpose -- by introducing an interdisciplinary framework that integrates clinical soundness, social context, and equity, providing a structured basis for evaluation. Through an analysis of 135 recent *CL publications, we identify recurring limitations, including over-reliance on generic metrics that do not capture clinical validity, therapeutic appropriateness, or user experience, limited participation from mental health professionals, and insufficient attention to safety and equity. To address these gaps, we propose a taxonomy of AI mental health support types -- assessment-, intervention-, and information synthesis-oriented -- each with distinct risks and evaluative requirements, and illustrate its use through case studies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

PATS: Personality-Aware Teaching Strategies with Large Language Model Tutors

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) demonstrate their potential as educational tutors. However, different tutoring strategies benefit different student personalities, and mismatches can be counterproductive to student outcomes. Despite this, current LLM tutoring systems do not take into account student personality traits. To address this problem, we first construct a taxonomy that links pedagogical methods to personality profiles, based on pedagogical literature. We simulate student-teacher conversations and use our framework to let the LLM tutor adjust its strategy to the simulated student personality. We evaluate the scenario with human teachers and find that they consistently prefer our approach over two baselines. Our method also increases the use of less common, high-impact strategies such as role-playing, which human and LLM annotators prefer significantly. Our findings pave the way for developing more personalized and effective LLM use in educational applications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Do Prompts Reshape Representations? An Empirical Study of Prompting Effects on Embeddings

Prompting is a common approach for leveraging LMs in zero-shot settings. However, the underlying mechanisms that enable LMs to perform diverse tasks without task-specific supervision remain poorly understood. Studying the relationship between prompting and the quality of internal representations can shed light on how pre-trained embeddings may support in-context task solving. In this empirical study, we conduct a series of probing experiments on prompt embeddings, analyzing various combinations of prompt templates for zero-shot classification. Our findings show that while prompting affects the quality of representations, these changes do not consistently correlate with the relevance of the prompts to the target task. This result challenges the assumption that more relevant prompts necessarily lead to better representations. We further analyze potential factors that may contribute to this unexpected behavior.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

SimBench: Benchmarking the Ability of Large Language Models to Simulate Human Behaviors

Large language model (LLM) simulations of human behavior have the potential to revolutionize the social and behavioral sciences, if and only if they faithfully reflect real human behaviors. Current evaluations of simulation fidelity are fragmented, based on bespoke tasks and metrics, creating a patchwork of incomparable results. To address this, we introduce SimBench, the first large-scale, standardized benchmark for a robust, reproducible science of LLM simulation. By unifying 20 diverse datasets covering tasks from moral decision-making to economic choice across a large global participant pool, SimBench provides the necessary foundation to ask fundamental questions about when, how, and why LLM simulations succeed or fail. We show that the best LLMs today achieve meaningful but modest simulation fidelity (score: 40.80/100), with performance scaling log-linearly with model size but not with increased inference-time compute. We discover an alignment-simulation tradeoff: instruction tuning improves performance on low-entropy (consensus) questions but degrades it on high-entropy (diverse) ones. Models particularly struggle when simulating specific demographic groups. Finally, we demonstrate that simulation ability correlates most strongly with knowledge-intensive reasoning (MMLU-Pro, r = 0.939). By making progress measurable, we aim to accelerate the development of more faithful LLM simulators.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Large Language Model Hacking: Quantifying the Hidden Risks of Using LLMs for Text Annotation

Large language models are rapidly transforming social science research by enabling the automation of labor-intensive tasks like data annotation and text analysis. However, LLM outputs vary significantly depending on the implementation choices made by researchers (e.g., model selection or prompting strategy). Such variation can introduce systematic biases and random errors, which propagate to downstream analyses and cause Type I (false positive), Type II (false negative), Type S (wrong sign), or Type M (exaggerated effect) errors. We call this phenomenon where configuration choices lead to incorrect conclusions LLM hacking. We find that intentional LLM hacking is strikingly simple. By replicating 37 data annotation tasks from 21 published social science studies, we show that, with just a handful of prompt paraphrases, virtually anything can be presented as statistically significant. Beyond intentional manipulation, our analysis of 13 million labels from 18 different LLMs across 2361 realistic hypotheses shows that there is also a high risk of accidental LLM hacking, even when following standard research practices. We find incorrect conclusions in approximately 31% of hypotheses for state-of-the-art LLMs, and in half the hypotheses for smaller language models. While higher task performance and stronger general model capabilities reduce LLM hacking risk, even highly accurate models remain susceptible. The risk of LLM hacking decreases as effect sizes increase, indicating the need for more rigorous verification of LLM-based findings near significance thresholds. We analyze 21 mitigation techniques and find that human annotations provide crucial protection against false positives. Common regression estimator correction techniques can restore valid inference but trade off Type I vs. Type II errors. We publish a list of practical recommendations to prevent LLM hacking.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Biased Tales: Cultural and Topic Bias in Generating Children's Stories

Stories play a pivotal role in human communication, shaping beliefs and morals, particularly in children. As parents increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs) to craft bedtime stories, the presence of cultural and gender stereotypes in these narratives raises significant concerns. To address this issue, we present Biased Tales, a comprehensive dataset designed to analyze how biases influence protagonists' attributes and story elements in LLM-generated stories. Our analysis uncovers striking disparities. When the protagonist is described as a girl (as compared to a boy), appearance-related attributes increase by 55.26%. Stories featuring non-Western children disproportionately emphasize cultural heritage, tradition, and family themes far more than those for Western children. Our findings highlight the role of sociocultural bias in making creative AI use more equitable and diverse.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

No for Some, Yes for Others: Persona Prompts and Other Sources of False Refusal in Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into our daily lives and personalized. However, LLM personalization might also increase unintended side effects. Recent work suggests that persona prompting can lead models to falsely refuse user requests. However, no work has fully quantified the extent of this issue. To address this gap, we measure the impact of 15 sociodemographic personas (based on gender, race, religion, and disability) on false refusal. To control for other factors, we also test 16 different models, 3 tasks (Natural Language Inference, politeness, and offensiveness classification), and nine prompt paraphrases. We propose a Monte Carlo-based method to quantify this issue in a sample-efficient manner. Our results show that as models become more capable, personas impact the refusal rate less and less. Certain sociodemographic personas increase false refusal in some models, which suggests underlying biases in the alignment strategies or safety mechanisms. However, we find that the model choice and task significantly influence false refusals, especially in sensitive content tasks. Our findings suggest that persona effects have been overestimated, and might be due to other factors.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Exploring Subjective Tasks in Farsi: A Survey Analysis and Evaluation of Language Models

Given Farsi's speaker base of over 127 million people and the growing availability of digital text, including more than 1.3 million articles on Wikipedia, it is considered a middle-resource language. However, this label quickly crumbles when the situation is examined more closely. We focus on three subjective tasks (Sentiment Analysis, Emotion Analysis, and Toxicity Detection) and find significant challenges in data availability and quality, despite the overall increase in data availability. We review 110 publications on subjective tasks in Farsi and observe a lack of publicly available datasets. Furthermore, existing datasets often lack essential demographic factors, such as age and gender, that are crucial for accurately modeling subjectivity in language. When evaluating prediction models using the few available datasets, the results are highly unstable across both datasets and models. Our findings indicate that the volume of data is insufficient to significantly improve a language's prospects in NLP.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Principled Personas: Defining and Measuring the Intended Effects of Persona Prompting on Task Performance

Expert persona prompting -- assigning roles such as expert in math to language models -- is widely used for task improvement. However, prior work shows mixed results on its effectiveness, and does not consider when and why personas should improve performance. We analyze the literature on persona prompting for task improvement and distill three desiderata: 1) performance advantage of expert personas, 2) robustness to irrelevant persona attributes, and 3) fidelity to persona attributes. We then evaluate 9 state-of-the-art LLMs across 27 tasks with respect to these desiderata. We find that expert personas usually lead to positive or non-significant performance changes. Surprisingly, models are highly sensitive to irrelevant persona details, with performance drops of almost 30 percentage points. In terms of fidelity, we find that while higher education, specialization, and domain-relatedness can boost performance, their effects are often inconsistent or negligible across tasks. We propose mitigation strategies to improve robustness -- but find they only work for the largest, most capable models. Our findings underscore the need for more careful persona design and for evaluation schemes that reflect the intended effects of persona usage.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models

People increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for moral advice, which may influence humans' decisions. Yet, little is known about how closely LLMs align with human moral judgments. To address this, we introduce the Moral Dilemma Dataset, a benchmark of 1,618 real-world moral dilemmas paired with a distribution of human moral judgments consisting of a binary evaluation and a free-text rationale. We treat this problem as a pluralistic distributional alignment task, comparing the distributions of LLM and human judgments across dilemmas. We find that models reproduce human judgments only under high consensus; alignment deteriorates sharply when human disagreement increases. In parallel, using a 60-value taxonomy built from 3,783 value expressions extracted from rationales, we show that LLMs rely on a narrower set of moral values than humans. These findings reveal a pluralistic moral gap: a mismatch in both the distribution and diversity of values expressed. To close this gap, we introduce Dynamic Moral Profiling (DMP), a Dirichlet-based sampling method that conditions model outputs on human-derived value profiles. DMP improves alignment by 64.3% and enhances value diversity, offering a step toward more pluralistic and human-aligned moral guidance from LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Co-DETECT: Collaborative Discovery of Edge Cases in Text Classification

We introduce Co-DETECT (Collaborative Discovery of Edge cases in TExt ClassificaTion), a novel mixed-initiative annotation framework that integrates human expertise with automatic annotation guided by large language models (LLMs). Co-DETECT starts with an initial, sketch-level codebook and dataset provided by a domain expert, then leverages the LLM to annotate the data and identify edge cases that are not well described by the initial codebook. Specifically, Co-DETECT flags challenging examples, induces high-level, generalizable descriptions of edge cases, and assists user in incorporating edge case handling rules to improve the codebook. This iterative process enables more effective handling of nuanced phenomena through compact, generalizable annotation rules. Extensive user study, qualitative and quantitative analyses prove the effectiveness of Co-DETECT.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Can Reasoning Help Large Language Models Capture Human Annotator Disagreement?

Variation in human annotation (i.e., disagreements) is common in NLP, often reflecting important information like task subjectivity and sample ambiguity. Modeling this variation is important for applications that are sensitive to such information. Although RLVR-style reasoning (Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards) has improved Large Language Model (LLM) performance on many tasks, it remains unclear whether such reasoning enables LLMs to capture informative variation in human annotation. In this work, we evaluate the influence of different reasoning settings on LLM disagreement modeling. We systematically evaluate each reasoning setting across model sizes, distribution expression methods, and steering methods, resulting in 60 experimental setups across 3 tasks. Surprisingly, our results show that RLVR-style reasoning degrades performance in disagreement modeling, while naive Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves the performance of RLHF LLMs (RL from human feedback). These findings underscore the potential risk of replacing human annotators with reasoning LLMs, especially when disagreements are important.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Educators' Perceptions of Large Language Models as Tutors: Comparing Human and AI Tutors in a Blind Text-only Setting

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) opens up the possibility of using them as personal tutors. This has led to the development of several intelligent tutoring systems and learning assistants that use LLMs as back-ends with various degrees of engineering. In this study, we seek to compare human tutors with LLM tutors in terms of engagement, empathy, scaffolding, and conciseness. We ask human tutors to annotate and compare the performance of an LLM tutor with that of a human tutor in teaching grade-school math word problems on these qualities. We find that annotators with teaching experience perceive LLMs as showing higher performance than human tutors in all 4 metrics. The biggest advantage is in empathy, where 80% of our annotators prefer the LLM tutor more often than the human tutors. Our study paints a positive picture of LLMs as tutors and indicates that these models can be used to reduce the load on human teachers in the future.

cs.ET↗

arXiv2025

The AI Gap: How Socioeconomic Status Affects Language Technology Interactions

Socioeconomic status (SES) fundamentally influences how people interact with each other and more recently, with digital technologies like Large Language Models (LLMs). While previous research has highlighted the interaction between SES and language technology, it was limited by reliance on proxy metrics and synthetic data. We survey 1,000 individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds about their use of language technologies and generative AI, and collect 6,482 prompts from their previous interactions with LLMs. We find systematic differences across SES groups in language technology usage (i.e., frequency, performed tasks), interaction styles, and topics. Higher SES entails a higher level of abstraction, convey requests more concisely, and topics like 'inclusivity' and 'travel'. Lower SES correlates with higher anthropomorphization of LLMs (using ''hello'' and ''thank you'') and more concrete language. Our findings suggest that while generative language technologies are becoming more accessible to everyone, socioeconomic linguistic differences still stratify their use to exacerbate the digital divide. These differences underscore the importance of considering SES in developing language technologies to accommodate varying linguistic needs rooted in socioeconomic factors and limit the AI Gap across SES groups.

cs.CL↗