arXiv subjects

Flor Miriam Plaza-del-Arco

Publications and source records attributed to Flor Miriam Plaza-del-Arco.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Who Trusts AI with Their Emotions? Trust Formation and Sociodemographic Variation in LLM Use for Emotional Support

Trust in AI for emotional support is not universal; it is shaped by who users are, where they come from, and what they value. Yet research in this area lacks validated psychometric instruments for assessing user perceptions in affective AI contexts and large-scale evidence on how trust formation varies across user segments. To address these gaps, we develop and validate a seven-construct psychometric scale, test a Structural Equation Model (SEM) linking system attributes to Trust and Perceived Benefits as mediators of Actual System Use, and conduct a Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) across five sociodemographic dimensions (gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, cross-national region), drawing on 1,343 active users from seven countries. We find that users experience empathy and anthropomorphism as a unified "Humanlikeness" construct, and that Privacy, Personalization, and Humanlikeness drive Trust while Perceived Bias degrades it. Notably, adoption logic diverges across groups: Privacy shapes women's trust more than men's, Anglosphere (UK, USA) users respond more positively to Humanlikeness than Europeans, and educated and higher-income users require Trust to engage, whereas older adults and lower socioeconomic groups bypass it entirely, relying on perceived practical benefits (e.g., 24/7 availability, non-judgmental support). Our findings extend technology acceptance theory and inform the equitable design of emotional support AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Affective AI Safety: The Missing Piece in LLM Safety

AI safety research has focused predominantly on epistemic and physical harms (e.g., misinformation, bias, system reliability) while the risks that arise from AI systems' engagement with human emotional life have remained fragmented and undertheorised. We propose affective safety as a unified class of AI safety concerns grounded in the fact that humans are affective beings. We develop a taxonomy of affective harms and identify recurring harm types: (1) affective self-alienation, (2) fairness and bias harms, and (3) relational harms. We show that their recurrence across system types reflects structural properties of how AI systems engage with human emotion and survey the current safety landscape and show that existing frameworks address affective safety either narrowly or not at all. We conclude by identifying the technical and regulatory challenges specific to this class of harms and argue that affective safety requires dedicated frameworks that engage with cumulative, relational, and identity-level effects.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

From Chatbots to Confidants: A Cross-Cultural Study of LLM Adoption for Emotional Support

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used not only for instrumental tasks, but as always-available and non-judgmental confidants for emotional support. Yet what drives adoption and how users perceive emotional support interactions across countries remains unknown. To address this gap, we present the first large-scale cross-cultural study of LLM use for emotional support, surveying 4,641 participants across seven countries (USA, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and The Netherlands). Our results show that adoption rates vary dramatically across countries (from 20% to 59%). Using mixed models that separate cultural effects from demographic composition, we find that: Being aged 25-44, religious, married, and of higher socioeconomic status are predictors of positive perceptions (trust, usage, perceived benefits), with socioeconomic status being the strongest. English-speaking countries consistently show more positive perceptions than Continental European countries. We further collect a corpus of 731 real multilingual prompts from user interactions, showing that users mainly seek help for loneliness, stress, relationship conflicts, and mental health struggles. Our findings reveal that LLM emotional support use is shaped by a complex sociotechnical landscape and call for a broader research agenda examining how these systems can be developed, deployed, and governed to ensure safe and informed access.

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

FLANS at SemEval-2026 Task 7: RAG with Open-Sourced Smaller LLMs for Everyday Knowledge Across Diverse Languages and Cultures

This system paper describes our participation in the SemEval-2025 Task-7 ``Everyday Knowledge Across Diverse Languages and Cultures''. We attended two subtasks, i.e., Track 1: Short Answer Questions (SAQ), and Track 2: Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ). The methods we used are retrieval augmented generation (RAGs) with open-sourced smaller LLMs (OS-sLLMs). To better adapt to this shared task, we created our own culturally aware knowledge base (CulKBs) by extracting Wikipedia content using keyword lists we prepared. We extracted both culturally-aware wiki-text and country-specific wiki-summary. In addition to the local CulKBs, we also have one system integrating live online search output via DuckDuckGo. Towards better privacy and sustainability, we aimed to deploy smaller LLMs (sLLMs) that are open-sourced on the Ollama platform. We share the prompts we developed using refinement techniques and report the learning curve of such prompts. The tested languages are English, Spanish, and Chinese for both tracks. Our resources and codes are shared via https://github.com/aaronlifenghan/FLANS-2026

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MFTCXplain: A Multilingual Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating the Moral Reasoning of LLMs through Multi-hop Hate Speech Explanation

Ensuring the moral reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a growing concern as these systems are used in socially sensitive tasks. Nevertheless, current evaluation benchmarks present two major shortcomings: a lack of annotations that justify moral classifications, which limits transparency and interpretability; and a predominant focus on English, which constrains the assessment of moral reasoning across diverse cultural settings. In this paper, we introduce MFTCXplain, a multilingual benchmark dataset for evaluating the moral reasoning of LLMs via multi-hop hate speech explanation using the Moral Foundations Theory. MFTCXplain comprises 3,000 tweets across Portuguese, Italian, Persian, and English, annotated with binary hate speech labels, moral categories, and text span-level rationales. Our results show a misalignment between LLM outputs and human annotations in moral reasoning tasks. While LLMs perform well in hate speech detection (F1 up to 0.836), their ability to predict moral sentiments is notably weak (F1 < 0.35). Furthermore, rationale alignment remains limited mainly in underrepresented languages. Our findings show the limited capacity of current LLMs to internalize and reflect human moral reasoning

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

SINAI at eRisk@CLEF 2023: Approaching Early Detection of Gambling with Natural Language Processing

This paper describes the participation of the SINAI team in the eRisk@CLEF lab. Specifically, one of the proposed tasks has been addressed: Task 2 on the early detection of signs of pathological gambling. The approach presented in Task 2 is based on pre-trained models from Transformers architecture with comprehensive preprocessing data and data balancing techniques. Moreover, we integrate Long-short Term Memory (LSTM) architecture with automodels from Transformers. In this Task, our team has been ranked in seventh position, with an F1 score of 0.126, out of 49 participant submissions and achieves the highest values in recall metrics and metrics related to early detection.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

SINAI at eRisk@CLEF 2022: Approaching Early Detection of Gambling and Eating Disorders with Natural Language Processing

This paper describes the participation of the SINAI team in the eRisk@CLEF lab. Specifically, two of the proposed tasks have been addressed: i) Task 1 on the early detection of signs of pathological gambling, and ii) Task 3 on measuring the severity of the signs of eating disorders. The approach presented in Task 1 is based on the use of sentence embeddings from Transformers with features related to volumetry, lexical diversity, complexity metrics, and emotion-related scores, while the approach for Task 3 is based on text similarity estimation using contextualized word embeddings from Transformers. In Task 1, our team has been ranked in second position, with an F1 score of 0.808, out of 41 participant submissions. In Task 3, our team also placed second out of a total of 3 participating teams.

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

La Leaderboard: A Large Language Model Leaderboard for Spanish Varieties and Languages of Spain and Latin America

Leaderboards showcase the current capabilities and limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs). To motivate the development of LLMs that represent the linguistic and cultural diversity of the Spanish-speaking community, we present La Leaderboard, the first open-source leaderboard to evaluate generative LLMs in languages and language varieties of Spain and Latin America. La Leaderboard is a community-driven project that aims to establish an evaluation standard for everyone interested in developing LLMs for the Spanish-speaking community. This initial version combines 66 datasets in Basque, Catalan, Galician, and different Spanish varieties, showcasing the evaluation results of 50 models. To encourage community-driven development of leaderboards in other languages, we explain our methodology, including guidance on selecting the most suitable evaluation setup for each downstream task. In particular, we provide a rationale for using fewer few-shot examples than typically found in the literature, aiming to reduce environmental impact and facilitate access to reproducible results for a broader research community.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Think Like a Person Before Responding: A Multi-Faceted Evaluation of Persona-Guided LLMs for Countering Hate

Automated counter-narratives (CN) offer a promising strategy for mitigating online hate speech, yet concerns about their affective tone, accessibility, and ethical risks remain. We propose a framework for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM)-generated CNs across four dimensions: persona framing, verbosity and readability, affective tone, and ethical robustness. Using GPT-4o-Mini, Cohere's CommandR-7B, and Meta's LLaMA 3.1-70B, we assess three prompting strategies on the MT-Conan and HatEval datasets. Our findings reveal that LLM-generated CNs are often verbose and adapted for people with college-level literacy, limiting their accessibility. While emotionally guided prompts yield more empathetic and readable responses, there remain concerns surrounding safety and effectiveness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, evaluating them remains a persistent challenge. Many recent evaluations use LLMs as judges to score outputs from other LLMs, often relying on a single large model like GPT-4o. However, using a single LLM judge is prone to intra-model bias, and many tasks - such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, and persuasiveness - may be too subjective for a single model to judge fairly. We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other's responses to produce a ranking in a democratic fashion. Unlike previous approaches that focus on reducing cost or bias by using a panel of smaller models, our work examines the benefits and nuances of a fully inclusive LLM evaluation system. In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge. Using all LLMs for judging can be costly, however, so we use Monte Carlo simulations and hand-curated sub-councils to study hypothetical council compositions and discuss the value of the incremental LLM judge.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MSTS: A Multimodal Safety Test Suite for Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models (VLMs), which process image and text inputs, are increasingly integrated into chat assistants and other consumer AI applications. Without proper safeguards, however, VLMs may give harmful advice (e.g. how to self-harm) or encourage unsafe behaviours (e.g. to consume drugs). Despite these clear hazards, little work so far has evaluated VLM safety and the novel risks created by multimodal inputs. To address this gap, we introduce MSTS, a Multimodal Safety Test Suite for VLMs. MSTS comprises 400 test prompts across 40 fine-grained hazard categories. Each test prompt consists of a text and an image that only in combination reveal their full unsafe meaning. With MSTS, we find clear safety issues in several open VLMs. We also find some VLMs to be safe by accident, meaning that they are safe because they fail to understand even simple test prompts. We translate MSTS into ten languages, showing non-English prompts to increase the rate of unsafe model responses. We also show models to be safer when tested with text only rather than multimodal prompts. Finally, we explore the automation of VLM safety assessments, finding even the best safety classifiers to be lacking.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Divine LLaMAs: Bias, Stereotypes, Stigmatization, and Emotion Representation of Religion in Large Language Models

Emotions play important epistemological and cognitive roles in our lives, revealing our values and guiding our actions. Previous work has shown that LLMs display biases in emotion attribution along gender lines. However, unlike gender, which says little about our values, religion, as a socio-cultural system, prescribes a set of beliefs and values for its followers. Religions, therefore, cultivate certain emotions. Moreover, these rules are explicitly laid out and interpreted by religious leaders. Using emotion attribution, we explore how different religions are represented in LLMs. We find that: Major religions in the US and European countries are represented with more nuance, displaying a more shaded model of their beliefs. Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are strongly stereotyped. Judaism and Islam are stigmatized -- the models' refusal skyrocket. We ascribe these to cultural bias in LLMs and the scarcity of NLP literature on religion. In the rare instances where religion is discussed, it is often in the context of toxic language, perpetuating the perception of these religions as inherently toxic. This finding underscores the urgent need to address and rectify these biases. Our research underscores the crucial role emotions play in our lives and how our values influence them.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Angry Men, Sad Women: Large Language Models Reflect Gendered Stereotypes in Emotion Attribution

Large language models (LLMs) reflect societal norms and biases, especially about gender. While societal biases and stereotypes have been extensively researched in various NLP applications, there is a surprising gap for emotion analysis. However, emotion and gender are closely linked in societal discourse. E.g., women are often thought of as more empathetic, while men's anger is more socially accepted. To fill this gap, we present the first comprehensive study of gendered emotion attribution in five state-of-the-art LLMs (open- and closed-source). We investigate whether emotions are gendered, and whether these variations are based on societal stereotypes. We prompt the models to adopt a gendered persona and attribute emotions to an event like 'When I had a serious argument with a dear person'. We then analyze the emotions generated by the models in relation to the gender-event pairs. We find that all models consistently exhibit gendered emotions, influenced by gender stereotypes. These findings are in line with established research in psychology and gender studies. Our study sheds light on the complex societal interplay between language, gender, and emotion. The reproduction of emotion stereotypes in LLMs allows us to use those models to study the topic in detail, but raises questions about the predictive use of those same LLMs for emotion applications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Wisdom of Instruction-Tuned Language Model Crowds. Exploring Model Label Variation

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable text classification capabilities, excelling in zero- and few-shot learning (ZSL and FSL) scenarios. However, since they are trained on different datasets, performance varies widely across tasks between those models. Recent studies emphasize the importance of considering human label variation in data annotation. However, how this human label variation also applies to LLMs remains unexplored. Given this likely model specialization, we ask: Do aggregate LLM labels improve over individual models (as for human annotators)? We evaluate four recent instruction-tuned LLMs as annotators on five subjective tasks across four languages. We use ZSL and FSL setups and label aggregation from human annotation. Aggregations are indeed substantially better than any individual model, benefiting from specialization in diverse tasks or languages. Surprisingly, FSL does not surpass ZSL, as it depends on the quality of the selected examples. However, there seems to be no good information-theoretical strategy to select those. We find that no LLM method rivals even simple supervised models. We also discuss the tradeoffs in accuracy, cost, and moral/ethical considerations between LLM and human annotation.

cs.CL↗