arXiv subjects

Kokil Jaidka

Publications and source records attributed to Kokil Jaidka.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

How Far Did They Go? The Persuasive Tactics of Covert LLM Agents in a Discontinued Field Experiment

This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView. The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate. After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure. We conduct a structured content analysis of this corpus, evaluating identity performance, authority signaling, alignment strategies, and activation of cognitive heuristics. Identity targeting or adoption appears in over two-thirds of comments, alignment moves and authority claims in nearly all of them, and cognitive-bias triggers -- particularly confirmation bias, representativeness, and availability -- in the large majority. These patterns co-occur systematically, composing a rhetorical architecture calibrated for persuasive efficiency rather than authentic deliberative participation. Compared against human-authored CMV counter-arguments, the agents inverted the typical distribution on every dimension: denser authority use, more adversarial alignment, and heavier reliance on external citation over experiential grounding. In such environments, distinctions between authentic and synthetic epistemic standing grow increasingly opaque -- an asymmetry that disclosure mandates alone cannot address. The results point toward auditing frameworks capable of assessing how AI systems structure credibility, not merely whether they are present.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

CommunityFact: A Dynamic, Multilingual, Multi-domain Benchmark for Misinformation Detection in the Wild

Misinformation verification increasingly occurs in public, fast-moving, and multilingual online settings, where static benchmarks provide an incomplete measure of model reliability. We introduce CommunityFact, a refreshable benchmark for misinformation detection in the wild, with three major goals: coverage, granularity, and redistributability. This release contains 15,992 standalone claims across five languages and two domains. We evaluate ten LLMs under varying inference-time capabilities, including thinking and web-search. Our results show that closed-input verification remains challenging, web access yields the largest gains, and web-enabled LLMs' source-selection policies are systematically misaligned with the sources human Community Notes raters converge on -- a gap that closes through model-specific mechanisms of retrieval expansion or pruning. We further find substantial variation across language-domain slices and across the evidence ecosystems used by web-enabled systems. Beyond evaluation, CommunityFact positions Community Notes as a training signal for claim-conditioned source suggesters that could improve factual verification on novel claims.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The MediaSpin Dataset: Post-Publication News Headline Edits Annotated for Media Bias

We present MediaSpin, a large-scale language resource capturing how major news outlets modify headlines after publication, and MediaSpin-in-the-Wild, a complementary dataset linking these revised headlines to their downstream engagement on social media. The increasing editability of online news headlines offers new opportunities to study linguistic framing and bias through the lens of editorial revisions. The dataset contains 78,910 headline pairs annotated for 13 types of media bias, grounded in established media-bias taxonomies, covering both subjective (e.g., sensationalism, spin) and objective (e.g., omission, slant) forms, with annotation conducted through a human-supervised large-language-model pipeline with expert validation and quality control. We describe the annotation schema and demonstrate three downstream applications: (1) cross-national analysis of how country references are added or removed during editing, (2) transformer-based bias classification at both binary and fine-grained levels, and (3) behavioral analysis of biased headlines on X (Twitter) using 180,786 news-related tweets from 819 consenting users. The results reveal regional asymmetries in representational framing, measurable linguistic markers, and consistently higher engagement with biased content. MediaSpin and MediaSpin-in-the-Wild together provide a reproducible benchmark for bias detection and the study of editorial and behavioral dynamics in contemporary media ecosystems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Althea: Human-AI Collaboration for Fact-Checking and Critical Reasoning

The web's information ecosystem demands fact-checking systems that are both scalable and epistemically trustworthy. Automated approaches offer efficiency but often lack transparency, while human verification remains slow and inconsistent. We introduce Althea, a retrieval-augmented system that integrates question generation, evidence retrieval, and structured reasoning to support user-driven evaluation of online claims. On the AVeriTeC benchmark, Althea achieves a Macro-F1 of 0.44, outperforming standard verification pipelines and improving discrimination between supported and refuted claims. We further evaluate Althea through a controlled user study and a longitudinal survey experiment (N=963), comparing three interaction modes that vary in the degree of scaffolding: an Exploratory mode with guided reasoning, a Summary mode providing synthesized verdicts, and a Self-search mode that offers procedural guidance without algorithmic intervention. Results show that guided interaction produces the strongest immediate gains in accuracy and confidence, while self-directed search yields the most persistent improvements over time. This pattern suggests that performance gains are not driven solely by effort or exposure, but by how cognitive work is structured and internalized. Participants consistently described Althea as transparent and supportive of reflective reasoning, emphasizing its ability to organize evidence and clarify competing claims. By integrating retrieval, interaction, and pedagogical scaffolding, Althea demonstrates how human--AI interaction can move beyond automated verdicts toward durable improvements in reasoning. These findings advance the design of trustworthy, human-centered fact-checking systems that balance guidance with epistemic autonomy.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Reading Between the Lines: How Electronic Nonverbal Cues shape Emotion Decoding

As text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) increasingly structures everyday interaction, a central question re-emerges with new urgency: How do users reconstruct nonverbal expression in environments where embodied cues are absent? This paper provides a systematic, theory-driven account of electronic nonverbal cues (eNVCs) - textual analogues of kinesics, vocalics, and paralinguistics - in public microblog communication. Across three complementary studies, we advance conceptual, empirical, and methodological contributions. Study 1 develops a unified taxonomy of eNVCs grounded in foundational nonverbal communication theory and introduces a scalable Python toolkit for their automated detection. Study 2, a within-subject survey experiment, offers controlled causal evidence that eNVCs substantially improve emotional decoding accuracy and lower perceived ambiguity, while also identifying boundary conditions, such as sarcasm, under which these benefits weaken or disappear. Study 3, through focus group discussions, reveals the interpretive strategies users employ when reasoning about digital prosody, including drawing meaning from the absence of expected cues and defaulting toward negative interpretations in ambiguous contexts. Together, these studies establish eNVCs as a coherent and measurable class of digital behaviors, refine theoretical accounts of cue richness and interpretive effort, and provide practical tools for affective computing, user modeling, and emotion-aware interface design. The eNVC detection toolkit is available as a Python and R package at https://github.com/kokiljaidka/envc.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

From Passive to Persuasive: Localized Activation Injection for Empathy and Negotiation

Complex social behaviors, such as empathy and strategic politeness, are widely assumed to resist the directional decomposition that makes activation steering effective for coarse attributes like sentiment or toxicity. We present STAR: Steering via Attribution and Representation, which tests this assumption by using attribution patching to identify the layer--token positions where each behavioral trait causally originates, then injecting contrastive activation vectors at precisely those locations. Evaluated on emotional dialogue and negotiation in both single- and multi-turn settings, localized injection consistently outperforms global steering and instruction priming; human evaluation confirms that gains reflect genuine improvements in perceived quality rather than lexical surface change. Our results suggest that complex interpersonal behaviors are encoded as localized, approximately linear directions in LLM activation space, and that behavioral alignment is fundamentally a localization problem.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Learning Through Dialogue: Engagement and Efficacy Matter More Than Explanations

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for learning, yet the interactional dynamics supporting users' learning and engagement are understudied. We analyze the linguistic and interactional features from both LLM and participant chats across 397 human-LLM conversations about socio-political issues to identify the mechanisms and conditions under which LLM explanations shape changes in political knowledge and confidence. Mediation analyses reveal that LLM explanatory richness partially supports confidence by fostering users' reflective insight, whereas its effect on knowledge gain operates entirely through users' cognitive engagement. Moderation analyses show that these effects are highly conditional and vary by political efficacy. Confidence gains depend on how high-efficacy users experience and resolve uncertainty. Knowledge gains depend on high-efficacy users' ability to leverage extended interaction, with longer conversations benefiting primarily reflective users. In summary, we find that learning from LLMs is an interactional achievement, not a uniform outcome of better explanations. The findings underscore the importance of aligning LLM explanatory behavior with users' engagement states to support effective learning in designing Human-AI interactive systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

GitSearch: Enhancing Community Notes Generation with Gap-Informed Targeted Search

Community-based moderation offers a scalable alternative to centralized fact-checking, yet it faces significant structural challenges, and existing AI-based methods fail in "cold start" scenarios. To tackle these challenges, we introduce GitSearch (Gap-Informed Targeted Search), a framework that treats human-perceived quality gaps, such as missing context, etc., as first-class signals. GitSearch has a three-stage pipeline: identifying information deficits, executing real-time targeted web-retrieval to resolve them, and synthesizing platform-compliant notes. To facilitate evaluation, we present PolBench, a benchmark of 78,698 U.S. political tweets with their associated Community Notes. We find GitSearch achieves 99% coverage, almost doubling coverage over the state-of-the-art. GitSearch surpasses human-authored helpful notes with a 69% win rate and superior helpfulness scores (3.87 vs. 3.36), demonstrating retrieval effectiveness that balanced the trade-off between scale and quality.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Layer of Truth: Probing Belief Shifts under Continual Pre-Training Poisoning

We show that continual pretraining on plausible misinformation can overwrite specific factual knowledge in large language models without degrading overall performance. Unlike prior poisoning work under static pretraining, we study repeated exposure to counterfactual claims during continual updates. Using paired fact-counterfact items with graded poisoning ratios, we track how internal preferences between competing facts evolve across checkpoints, layers, and model scales. Even moderate poisoning (50-100%) flips over 55% of responses from correct to counterfactual while leaving ambiguity nearly unchanged. These belief flips emerge abruptly, concentrate in late layers (e.g., Layers 29-36 in 3B models), and are partially reversible via patching (up to 56.8%). The corrupted beliefs generalize beyond poisoned prompts, selectively degrading commonsense reasoning while leaving alignment benchmarks largely intact and transferring imperfectly across languages. These results expose a failure mode of continual pre-training in which targeted misinformation replaces internal factual representations without triggering broad performance collapse, motivating representation-level monitoring of factual integrity during model updates.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Labels or Input? Rethinking Augmentation in Multimodal Hate Detection

Online hate remains a significant societal challenge, especially as multimodal content enables subtle, culturally grounded, and implicit forms of harm. Hateful memes embed hostility through text-image interactions and humor, making them difficult for automated systems to interpret. Although recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) perform well on explicit cases, their deployment is limited by high inference costs and persistent failures on nuanced content. This work examines how far small models can be improved through prompt optimization, fine-tuning, and automated data augmentation. We introduce an end-to-end pipeline that varies prompt structure, label granularity, and training modality, showing that structured prompts and scaled supervision significantly strengthen compact VLMs. We also develop a multimodal augmentation framework that generates counterfactually neutral memes via a coordinated LLM-VLM setup, reducing spurious correlations and improving the detection of implicit hate. Ablation studies quantify the contribution of each component, demonstrating that prompt design, granular labels, and targeted augmentation collectively narrow the gap between small and large models. The results offer a practical path toward more robust and deployable multimodal hate-detection systems without relying on costly large-model inference.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Do You Trust Me? Cognitive-Affective Signatures of Trustworthiness in Large Language Models

Perceived trustworthiness underpins how users navigate online information, yet it remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs),increasingly embedded in search, recommendation, and conversational systems, represent this construct in psychologically coherent ways. We analyze how instruction-tuned LLMs (Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B, Mistral 7B) encode perceived trustworthiness in web-like narratives using the PEACE-Reviews dataset annotated for cognitive appraisals, emotions, and behavioral intentions. Across models, systematic layer- and head-level activation differences distinguish high- from low-trust texts, revealing that trust cues are implicitly encoded during pretraining. Probing analyses show linearly de-codable trust signals and fine-tuning effects that refine rather than restructure these representations. Strongest associations emerge with appraisals of fairness, certainty, and accountability-self -- dimensions central to human trust formation online. These findings demonstrate that modern LLMs internalize psychologically grounded trust signals without explicit supervision, offering a representational foundation for designing credible, transparent, and trust-worthy AI systems in the web ecosystem. Code and appendix are available at: https://github.com/GerardYeo/TrustworthinessLLM.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Conversations: Love Them, Hate Them, Steer Them

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate increasing conversational fluency, yet instilling them with nuanced, human-like emotional expression remains a significant challenge. Current alignment techniques often address surface-level output or require extensive fine-tuning. This paper demonstrates that targeted activation engineering can steer LLaMA 3.1-8B to exhibit more human-like emotional nuances. We first employ attribution patching to identify causally influential components, to find a key intervention locus by observing activation patterns during diagnostic conversational tasks. We then derive emotional expression vectors from the difference in the activations generated by contrastive text pairs (positive vs. negative examples of target emotions). Applying these vectors to new conversational prompts significantly enhances emotional characteristics: steered responses show increased positive sentiment (e.g., joy, trust) and more frequent first-person pronoun usage, indicative of greater personal engagement. Our findings offer a precise and interpretable method for controlling specific emotional attributes in LLMs, contributing to developing more aligned and empathetic conversational AI.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Incivility and Rigidity: Evaluating the Risks of Fine-Tuning LLMs for Political Argumentation

Incivility on platforms such as Twitter (now X) and Reddit complicates the development of AI systems that can support productive, rhetorically sound political argumentation. We present experiments with \textit{GPT-3.5 Turbo} fine-tuned on two contrasting datasets of political discourse: high-incivility Twitter replies to U.S. Congress and low-incivility posts from Reddit's \textit{r/ChangeMyView}. Our evaluation examines how data composition and prompting strategies affect the rhetorical framing and deliberative quality of model-generated arguments. Results show that Reddit-finetuned models generate safer but rhetorically rigid arguments, while cross-platform fine-tuning amplifies adversarial tone and toxicity. Prompt-based steering reduces overt toxicity (e.g., personal attacks) but cannot fully offset the influence of noisy training data. We introduce a rhetorical evaluation rubric - covering justification, reciprocity, alignment, and authority - and provide implementation guidelines for authoring, moderation, and deliberation-support systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Disentangling Codemixing in Chats: The NUS ABC Codemixed Corpus

Code-mixing involves the seamless integration of linguistic elements from multiple languages within a single discourse, reflecting natural multilingual communication patterns. Despite its prominence in informal interactions such as social media, chat messages and instant-messaging exchanges, there has been a lack of publicly available corpora that are author-labeled and suitable for modeling human conversations and relationships. This study introduces the first labeled and general-purpose corpus for understanding code-mixing in context while maintaining rigorous privacy and ethical standards. Our live project will continuously gather, verify, and integrate code-mixed messages into a structured dataset released in JSON format, accompanied by detailed metadata and linguistic statistics. To date, it includes over 355,641 messages spanning various code-mixing patterns, with a primary focus on English, Mandarin, and other languages. We expect the Codemix Corpus to serve as a foundational dataset for research in computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and NLP applications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Beyond Context to Cognitive Appraisal: Emotion Reasoning as a Theory of Mind Benchmark for Large Language Models

Datasets used for emotion recognition tasks typically contain overt cues that can be used in predicting the emotions expressed in a text. However, one challenge is that texts sometimes contain covert contextual cues that are rich in affective semantics, which warrant higher-order reasoning abilities to infer emotional states, not simply the emotions conveyed. This study advances beyond surface-level perceptual features to investigate how large language models (LLMs) reason about others' emotional states using contextual information, within a Theory-of-Mind (ToM) framework. Grounded in Cognitive Appraisal Theory, we curate a specialized ToM evaluation dataset1 to assess both forward reasoning - from context to emotion- and backward reasoning - from emotion to inferred context. We showed that LLMs can reason to a certain extent, although they are poor at associating situational outcomes and appraisals with specific emotions. Our work highlights the need for psychological theories in the training and evaluation of LLMs in the context of emotion reasoning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Improving User Behavior Prediction: Leveraging Annotator Metadata in Supervised Machine Learning Models

Supervised machine-learning models often underperform in predicting user behaviors from conversational text, hindered by poor crowdsourced label quality and low NLP task accuracy. We introduce the Metadata-Sensitive Weighted-Encoding Ensemble Model (MSWEEM), which integrates annotator meta-features like fatigue and speeding. First, our results show MSWEEM outperforms standard ensembles by 14% on held-out data and 12% on an alternative dataset. Second, we find that incorporating signals of annotator behavior, such as speed and fatigue, significantly boosts model performance. Third, we find that annotators with higher qualifications, such as Master's, deliver more consistent and faster annotations. Given the increasing uncertainty over annotation quality, our experiments show that understanding annotator patterns is crucial for enhancing model accuracy in user behavior prediction.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

"Reasoning" with Rhetoric: On the Style-Evidence Tradeoff in LLM-Generated Counter-Arguments

Large language models (LLMs) play a key role in generating evidence-based and stylistic counter-arguments, yet their effectiveness in real-world applications has been underexplored. Previous research often neglects the balance between evidentiality and style, which are crucial for persuasive arguments. To address this, we evaluated the effectiveness of stylized evidence-based counter-argument generation in Counterfire, a new dataset of 38,000 counter-arguments generated by revising counter-arguments to Reddit's ChangeMyView community to follow different discursive styles. We evaluated generic and stylized counter-arguments from basic and fine-tuned models such as GPT-3.5, PaLM-2, and Koala-13B, as well as newer models (GPT-4o, Claude Haiku, LLaMA-3.1) focusing on rhetorical quality and persuasiveness. Our findings reveals that humans prefer stylized counter-arguments over the original outputs, with GPT-3.5 Turbo performing well, though still not reaching human standards of rhetorical quality nor persuasiveness indicating a persisting style-evidence tradeoff in counter-argument generation by LLMs. We conclude with an examination of ethical considerations in LLM persuasion research, addressing potential risks of deceptive practices and the need for transparent deployment methodologies to safeguard against misuse in public discourse. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/Preetika764/Style_control/.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

On the Limitations of Steering in Language Model Alignment

Steering vectors are a promising approach to aligning language model behavior at inference time. In this paper, we propose a framework to assess the limitations of steering vectors as alignment mechanisms. Using a framework of transformer hook interventions and antonym-based function vectors, we evaluate the role of prompt structure and context complexity in steering effectiveness. Our findings indicate that steering vectors are promising for specific alignment tasks, such as value alignment, but may not provide a robust foundation for general-purpose alignment in LLMs, particularly in complex scenarios. We establish a methodological foundation for future investigations into steering capabilities of reasoning models.

cs.CL↗