arXiv subjects

Pranav Narayanan Venkit

Publications and source records attributed to Pranav Narayanan Venkit.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Belief Cascades Drive Persuasion in LLM Agent Networks

Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly debate answers, coordinate research, simulate users, and mediate information flows, making agent-to-agent persuasion a basic but undermeasured capability. We introduce a controlled testbed for studying how goal-directed persuaders shift elicited stances in networks of LLM agents grounded in real-world ego-network topologies. Across four LLM backbones, five graphs, and 55 policy statements, we find that persuasion dynamics depend on the interaction between topology, competition, topic, and model prior. Additionally, we show that direct exposure reliably predicts next-round stance change in competing runs, and peer relays carry smaller but measurable influence, showing that agents not assigned to persuade can still transmit persuasive force. Finally, analyzing post text alone misses important movement: planned strategies are only partly realized in executed messages, action choices can diverge from message content, and persuadees rarely state the stance shifts detected by probes. These results argue for evaluating multi-agent persuasion as a trajectory- and exposure-level process, using belief probes, exposure provenance, and action logs to identify who influenced whom and whether visible language reflects underlying stance movement.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Redesigning and Auditing Deep Research Writing for Faithful Reports

Rubric-based evaluations of deep-research (DR) systems often obscure fine-grained factual failures in generated reports. We introduce CLAIMPROBE, a claim-level audit that decomposes DR reports into claims and measures hallucination, misattribution, citation hygiene, and necessary-fact recall against retrieved evidence. Using CLAIMPROBE, we find that strong DR pipelines can omit key evidence and misattribute claims even when their rubric scores remain stable. We then propose CLAIMWRITER, a hierarchical claim-based writer that extracts source facts, maps them to a query-derived outline, and drafts each section from a source-linked claim representation. Across three prior DR frameworks, replacing only the report writer with CLAIMWRITER reduces hallucination by 2.6 to 4.5 times and improves necessary-fact recall by 1.2 to 1.7 times, while largely preserving overall report quality. CLAIMWRITER also enables localized revision: when sources change, it propagates changed source facts into revised reports at the highest rate among update methods, while also being more cost-effective.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Best Friends, Not Forever: Evaluating Long-Horizon Persona Collapse and Behavioral Drift in AI Companions

As AI companions increasingly mediate repeated social interaction, users may rely on a stable role and shared history, yet locally acceptable replies do not ensure that either persists. We study two observable long-horizon failures: 'persona collapse', the loss of a deployed role, boundaries, values, or style, and 'behavioral drift', the gradual or recurrent erosion of those properties. We introduce ANCHOR, a controlled synthetic audit that separately measures persona enactment and trajectory recall. The study contains 2,008 conversations spanning 27 personas, nine interaction schedules, three generated memory settings, and four evaluated models. The Identity Probe combines a sealed 102-item questionnaire with turn-level judgments, while the Trajectory Probe scores 110 calibrated counterfactual questions from 35 conversation banks. Our results show that no evaluated model and configuration reliably preserves either dimensions: trajectory accuracy averages only 44.4%, user-state recall remains near four-option chance, and no tested context condition or memory consistently resolves these failures. Questionnaire retention also varies by model and persona facet, disagrees with turn-level behavior, and is sensitive to evaluator choice. These results indicate that current systems do not yet reliably support long-horizon companion continuity and that audits must distinguish persona enactment, trajectory recall, evaluator provenance, and deployment context rather than collapse them into a single trust or stability score.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Jury Duty: Calibration and Orientation Failures in MLLM-as-a-Judge Under Cultural Ambiguity

MLLM-as-a-Judge is conventionally validated by agreement with human annotations, but this metric is undefined when the human pool is culturally heterogeneous. We introduce VOIR DIRE, a multimodal benchmark of 626 culturally paired image--prompt artifacts spanning U.S. and mainland Chinese contexts across food, fashion, and architecture, with annotator pools that are within-pool reliable (a = 0.86/0.74) but cross-pool divergent on evaluation (Q1 r = -0.12). Across six MLLMs, the bias decomposes into two failures: a positivity-floor calibration failure (compressed scale use) and an orientation failure (default to one cultural norm). On this corpus, where contested items are sampled to split the two pools, the floor mechanically validates the more-permissive Chinese reading; persona prompting partially recovers calibration, but the orientation residual survives, evidence the tilt is not reducible to scale compression. Reference-pool in-context demonstrations deepen the orientation residual and inflate the high end rather than restoring use of the low end. Model origin adds a small additive tilt (~0.10 MAE) that is approximately invariant under demonstration. We recommend reporting alignment against each reference pool separately and treating cross-pool divergence as a judge property.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Seeing is Believing? Evaluating Vision-Language Model Susceptibility in Agent-to-Agent Multimodal Persuasion

As autonomous agents increasingly interact, they inevitably attempt to influence one another. While prior work in text-only settings has explored the dynamics of Agent-to-Agent (A2A) persuasion, the rise of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) introduces a more complex challenge: multimodal content conveys richer information while integrating subtle, hard-to-detect persuasive cues. To study this vulnerability, we present MMPersuade, a unified framework and dataset for A2A multimodal persuasion. We model interactions between a persuader agent, which leverages images and psychological strategies, and a persuadee VLM. Our benchmark spans commercial, subjective and behavioral, and adversarial contexts, and evaluates persuasion via function-calling that capture behavioral shifts beyond verbal responses. Experiments on six VLMs reveal three findings: (1) multimodal inputs consistently outperform text-only persuasion, with raw visual signals uniquely increasing susceptibility in adversarial settings by bypassing text-activated safety defenses; (2) persuadee vulnerability is highly domain- and format-dependent, with realistic and community-style formats driving susceptibility in commercial settings while different formats dominate in adversarial ones; and (3) psychological strategy efficacy varies with context and model architecture, as more capable models resist benign persuasion yet become more susceptible under adversarial multimodal inputs. Our framework provides a foundation for building more robust and aligned VLMs in multi-agent environments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

What if AI systems weren't chatbots?

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Dont Stop Early: Scalable Enterprise Deep Research with Controlled Information Flow and Evidence-Aware Termination

Enterprise deep research often fails to produce decision-ready reports due to uneven information coverage, context explosion, and premature stopping. We propose a scalable Enterprise Deep Research (EDR) architecture to address these failures. Our system (i) decomposes requests into coverage-driven objectives via outline generation with reflection, (ii) localizes context with dependency-guided execution and explicit information sharing, and (iii) enforces evidence-based completion criteria so agents iteratively collect information until sufficiency conditions are met. We evaluate on an internal sales enablement task and the public DeepResearch Bench benchmark, where our proposed system design achieves the strongest overall performance compared with competitive deep-research baselines. The results show that dependency-controlled context and explicit evidence sufficiency criteria reduce premature stopping and improve the consistency and depth of enterprise research outputs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Detection: Governing GenAI in Academic Peer Review as a Sociotechnical Challenge

Generative AI tools are increasingly entering academic peer review workflows, raising questions about fairness, accountability, and the legitimacy of evaluative judgment. While these systems promise efficiency gains amid growing reviewer overload, their use introduces new sociotechnical risks. This paper presents a convergent mixed-method study combining discourse analysis of 448 social media posts with interviews with 14 area chairs and program chairs from leading AI and HCI conferences to examine how GenAI is discussed and experienced in peer review. Across both datasets, we find broad agreement that GenAI may be acceptable for limited supportive tasks, such as improving clarity or structuring feedback, but that core evaluative judgments, assessing novelty, contribution, and acceptance, should remain human responsibilities. At the same time, participants highlight concerns about epistemic harm, over-standardization, unclear responsibility, and adversarial risks such as prompt injection. User interviews reveal how structural strain and institutional policy ambiguity shift interpretive and enforcement burdens onto individual scholars, disproportionately affecting junior authors and reviewers. By triangulating public governance discourse with lived review practices, this work reframes AI mediated peer review as a sociotechnical governance challenge and offers recommendations for preserving accountability, trust, and meaningful human oversight. Overall, we argue that AI-assisted peer review is best governed not by blanket bans or detection alone, but by explicitly reserving evaluative judgment for humans while instituting enforceable, role-specific controls that preserve accountability. We conclude with role specific recommendations that formalize the support judgment boundary.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

InterviewSim: A Scalable Framework for Interview-Grounded Personality Simulation

Simulating real personalities with large language models requires grounding generation in authentic personal data. Existing evaluation approaches rely on demographic surveys, personality questionnaires, or short AI-led interviews as proxies, but lack direct assessment against what individuals actually said. We address this gap with an interview-grounded evaluation framework for personality simulation at a large scale. We extract over 671,000 question-answer pairs from 23,000 verified interview transcripts across 1,000 public personalities, each with an average of 11.5 hours of interview content. We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework with four complementary metrics measuring content similarity, factual consistency, personality alignment, and factual knowledge retention. Through systematic comparison, we demonstrate that methods grounded in real interview data substantially outperform those relying solely on biographical profiles or the model's parametric knowledge. We further reveal a trade-off in how interview data is best utilized: retrieval-augmented methods excel at capturing personality style and response quality, while chronological-based methods better preserve factual consistency and knowledge retention. Our evaluation framework enables principled method selection based on application requirements, and our empirical findings provide actionable insights for advancing personality simulation research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Need for a Socially-Grounded Persona Framework for User Simulation

Synthetic personas are widely used to condition large language models (LLMs) for social simulation, yet most personas are still constructed from coarse sociodemographic attributes or summaries. We revisit persona creation by introducing SCOPE, a socially grounded framework for persona construction and evaluation, built from a 141-item, two-hour sociopsychological protocol collected from 124 U.S.-based participants. Across seven models, we find that demographic-only personas are a structural bottleneck: demographics explain only ~1.5% of variance in human response similarity. Adding sociopsychological facets improves behavioral prediction and reduces over-accentuation, and non-demographic personas based on values and identity achieve strong alignment with substantially lower bias. These trends generalize to SimBench (441 aligned questions), where SCOPE personas outperform default prompting and NVIDIA Nemotron personas, and SCOPE augmentation improves Nemotron-based personas. Our results indicate that persona quality depends on sociopsychological structure rather than demographic templates or summaries.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

DeepTRACE: Auditing Deep Research AI Systems for Tracking Reliability Across Citations and Evidence

Generative search engines and deep research LLM agents promise trustworthy, source-grounded synthesis, yet users regularly encounter overconfidence, weak sourcing, and confusing citation practices. We introduce DeepTRACE, a novel sociotechnically grounded audit framework that turns prior community-identified failure cases into eight measurable dimensions spanning answer text, sources, and citations. DeepTRACE uses statement-level analysis (decomposition, confidence scoring) and builds citation and factual-support matrices to audit how systems reason with and attribute evidence end-to-end. Using automated extraction pipelines for popular public models (e.g., GPT-4.5/5, You.com, Perplexity, Copilot/Bing, Gemini) and an LLM-judge with validated agreement to human raters, we evaluate both web-search engines and deep-research configurations. Our findings show that generative search engines and deep research agents frequently produce one-sided, highly confident responses on debate queries and include large fractions of statements unsupported by their own listed sources. Deep-research configurations reduce overconfidence and can attain high citation thoroughness, but they remain highly one-sided on debate queries and still exhibit large fractions of unsupported statements, with citation accuracy ranging from 40--80% across systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Social Scientists on the Role of AI in Research

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into social science research practices raises significant technological, methodological, and ethical issues. We present a community-centric study drawing on 284 survey responses and 15 semi-structured interviews with social scientists, describing their familiarity with, perceptions of the usefulness of, and ethical concerns about the use of AI in their field. A crucial innovation in study design is to split our survey sample in half, providing the same questions to each -- but randomizing whether participants were asked about "AI" or "Machine Learning" (ML). We find that the use of AI in research settings has increased significantly among social scientists in step with the widespread popularity of generative AI (genAI). These tools have been used for a range of tasks, from summarizing literature reviews to drafting research papers. Some respondents used these tools out of curiosity but were dissatisfied with the results, while others have now integrated them into their typical workflows. Participants, however, also reported concerns with the use of AI in research contexts. This is a departure from more traditional ML algorithms which they view as statistically grounded. Participants express greater trust in ML, citing its relative transparency compared to black-box genAI systems. Ethical concerns, particularly around automation bias, deskilling, research misconduct, complex interpretability, and representational harm, are raised in relation to genAI. To guide this transition, we offer recommendations for AI developers, researchers, educators, and policymakers focusing on explainability, transparency, ethical safeguards, sustainability, and the integration of lived experiences into AI design and evaluation processes.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

A Tale of Two Identities: An Ethical Audit of Human and AI-Crafted Personas

As LLMs (large language models) are increasingly used to generate synthetic personas particularly in data-limited domains such as health, privacy, and HCI, it becomes necessary to understand how these narratives represent identity, especially that of minority communities. In this paper, we audit synthetic personas generated by 3 LLMs (GPT4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Deepseek 2.5) through the lens of representational harm, focusing specifically on racial identity. Using a mixed methods approach combining close reading, lexical analysis, and a parameterized creativity framework, we compare 1512 LLM generated personas to human-authored responses. Our findings reveal that LLMs disproportionately foreground racial markers, overproduce culturally coded language, and construct personas that are syntactically elaborate yet narratively reductive. These patterns result in a range of sociotechnical harms, including stereotyping, exoticism, erasure, and benevolent bias, that are often obfuscated by superficially positive narrations. We formalize this phenomenon as algorithmic othering, where minoritized identities are rendered hypervisible but less authentic. Based on these findings, we offer design recommendations for narrative-aware evaluation metrics and community-centered validation protocols for synthetic identity generation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Can Third-parties Read Our Emotions?

Natural Language Processing tasks that aim to infer an author's private states, e.g., emotions and opinions, from their written text, typically rely on datasets annotated by third-party annotators. However, the assumption that third-party annotators can accurately capture authors' private states remains largely unexamined. In this study, we present human subjects experiments on emotion recognition tasks that directly compare third-party annotations with first-party (author-provided) emotion labels. Our findings reveal significant limitations in third-party annotations-whether provided by human annotators or large language models (LLMs)-in faithfully representing authors' private states. However, LLMs outperform human annotators nearly across the board. We further explore methods to improve third-party annotation quality. We find that demographic similarity between first-party authors and third-party human annotators enhances annotation performance. While incorporating first-party demographic information into prompts leads to a marginal but statistically significant improvement in LLMs' performance. We introduce a framework for evaluating the limitations of third-party annotations and call for refined annotation practices to accurately represent and model authors' private states.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Hey GPT, Can You be More Racist? Analysis from Crowdsourced Attempts to Elicit Biased Content from Generative AI

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) tools across diverse applications has amplified the importance of addressing societal biases inherent within these technologies. While the NLP community has extensively studied LLM bias, research investigating how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from these systems remains limited. As these technologies become increasingly prevalent, understanding this question is crucial to inform model developers in their efforts to mitigate bias. To address this gap, this work presents the findings from a university-level competition, which challenged participants to design prompts for eliciting biased outputs from GenAI tools. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the competition submissions and identify a diverse set of biases in GenAI and strategies employed by participants to induce bias in GenAI. Our finding provides unique insights into how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from GenAI tools.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Search Engines in an AI Era: The False Promise of Factual and Verifiable Source-Cited Responses

Large Language Model (LLM)-based applications are graduating from research prototypes to products serving millions of users, influencing how people write and consume information. A prominent example is the appearance of Answer Engines: LLM-based generative search engines supplanting traditional search engines. Answer engines not only retrieve relevant sources to a user query but synthesize answer summaries that cite the sources. To understand these systems' limitations, we first conducted a study with 21 participants, evaluating interactions with answer vs. traditional search engines and identifying 16 answer engine limitations. From these insights, we propose 16 answer engine design recommendations, linked to 8 metrics. An automated evaluation implementing our metrics on three popular engines (You.com, Perplexity.ai, BingChat) quantifies common limitations (e.g., frequent hallucination, inaccurate citation) and unique features (e.g., variation in answer confidence), with results mirroring user study insights. We release our Answer Engine Evaluation benchmark (AEE) to facilitate transparent evaluation of LLM-based applications.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

An Audit on the Perspectives and Challenges of Hallucinations in NLP

We audit how hallucination in large language models (LLMs) is characterized in peer-reviewed literature, using a critical examination of 103 publications across NLP research. Through the examination of the literature, we identify a lack of agreement with the term `hallucination' in the field of NLP. Additionally, to compliment our audit, we conduct a survey with 171 practitioners from the field of NLP and AI to capture varying perspectives on hallucination. Our analysis calls for the necessity of explicit definitions and frameworks outlining hallucination within NLP, highlighting potential challenges, and our survey inputs provide a thematic understanding of the influence and ramifications of hallucination in society.

cs.CL↗