arXiv subjects

Sheza Munir

Publications and source records attributed to Sheza Munir.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Are You the A-hole? A Fair, Multi-Perspective Ethical Reasoning Framework

Standard methods for aggregating natural language judgments, such as majority voting, often fail to produce logically consistent results when applied to high-conflict domains, treating differing opinions as noise. We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT). Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights. These components are then encoded as soft constraints within the Z3 solver, transforming the aggregation problem into an optimization task that seeks the maximum consistency across conflicting testimony. Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study in large-scale moral disagreement, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time, corroborated by an 86% agreement rate with independent human evaluators. This study demonstrates the efficacy of coupling neural semantic extraction with formal solvers to enforce logical soundness and explainability in the aggregation of noisy human reasoning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Dharma, Data and Deception: An LLM-Powered Rhetorical Analysis of Cow-Urine Health Claims on YouTube

Health misinformation remains one of the most pressing challenges on social media, particularly when cultural traditions intersect with scientific-sounding claims. These dynamics are not only global but also deeply local, manifesting in culturally specific controversies that require careful analysis. Motivated by this, we examine 100 YouTube transcripts that promote or debunk cow urine (gomutra) as a health remedy, focusing on rhetorical strategies such as appeals to authority, efficacy appeals, and conspiracy framing. We employ large language models (LLMs) including GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Mistral Medium 3 to annotate transcripts using a 14-category taxonomy of persuasive tactics. Our analysis reveals that promoters predominantly rely on efficacy appeals and social proof, while debunkers emphasize authority and rebuttal. Human evaluation of a subset of annotations yielded 90.1\% inter-annotator agreement, confirming the reliability of our taxonomy and validation process. This work advances computational methods for misinformation analysis and demonstrates how LLMs can support large-scale studies of cultural discourse online.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When Cow Urine Cures Constipation on YouTube: Limits of LLMs in Detecting Culture-specific Health Misinformation

Social media platforms have become primary channels for health information in the Global South. Using gomutra (cow urine) discourse on YouTube in India as a case study, we present a post-facto Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted discourse analysis of 30 multilingual transcripts showing that promotional content blends sacred traditional language with pseudo-scientific claims in ways that sophisticated debunking content itself mirrors, creating a rhetorical register that LLMs, trained predominantly on Western corpora, are systematically ill-equipped to analyse. Varying prompt tone across three LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.1), we find that culturally embedded health misinformation does not look like ordinary misinformation, and this cultural obfuscation extends to gendered rhetoric and prompt design, compounding analytical unreliability. Our findings argue that cultural competency in LLM-assisted discourse analysis cannot be retrofitted through prompt engineering alone.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation

In machine learning, "ground truth" refers to the assumed correct labels used to train and evaluate models. However, the foundational "ground truth" paradigm rests on a positivistic fallacy that treats human disagreement as technical noise rather than a vital sociotechnical signal. This systematic literature review analyzes research published between 2020 and 2025 across seven premier venues: ACL, AIES, CHI, CSCW, EAAMO, FAccT, and NeurIPS, investigating the mechanisms in data annotation practices that facilitate this "consensus trap". Our reflexive thematic analysis of 346 papers reveals that systemic failures in positional legibility, combined with the recent architectural shift toward human-as-verifier models, specifically the reliance on model-mediated annotations, introduce deep-seated anchoring bias and effectively remove human voices from the loop. We further demonstrate how geographic hegemony imposes Western norms as universal benchmarks, often enforced by the performative alignment of precarious data workers who prioritize requester compliance over honest subjectivity to avoid economic penalties. Critiquing the "noisy sensor" fallacy, where statistical models misdiagnose pluralism as error, we argue for reclaiming disagreement as a high-fidelity signal essential for building culturally competent models. To address these systemic tensions, we propose a roadmap for pluralistic annotation infrastructures that shift the objective from discovering a singular "right" answer to mapping the diversity of human experience.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

ExpertLongBench: Benchmarking Language Models on Expert-Level Long-Form Generation Tasks with Structured Checklists

This paper introduces ExpertLongBench, an expert-level benchmark containing 11 tasks from 9 domains that reflect realistic expert workflows and applications. Beyond question answering, the application-driven tasks in ExpertLongBench demand long-form outputs that can exceed 5,000 tokens and strict adherence to domain-specific requirements. Notably, each task in ExpertLongBench includes a rubric, designed or validated by domain experts, to specify task requirements and guide output evaluation. Furthermore, we propose CLEAR, an evaluation framework that supports accurate evaluation of long-form model outputs in our benchmark. To achieve fine-grained, expert-aligned evaluation, CLEAR derives checklists from both model outputs and references by extracting information corresponding to items in the task-specific rubric. Checklist items of model outputs are then compared with corresponding items of reference outputs to assess their correctness, enabling grounded evaluation. We benchmark 13 popular large language models (LLMs) and analyze components in CLEAR, showing that (1) existing LLMs, with the top performer Gemini-2.5-Pro achieving only a 33.4 F1 score, require significant improvement for expert-level tasks; (2) models can generate content corresponding to the required aspects, but far from correct; and (3) accurate checklist extraction and comparison in CLEAR can be achieved by open-weight models for more scalable, reproducible, and low-cost usage.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

VeriFact: Enhancing Long-Form Factuality Evaluation with Refined Fact Extraction and Reference Facts

Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating long-form responses, but evaluating their factuality remains challenging due to complex inter-sentence dependencies within the generated facts. Prior solutions predominantly follow a decompose-decontextualize-verify pipeline but often fail to capture essential context and miss key relational facts. In this paper, we introduce VeriFact, a factuality evaluation framework designed to enhance fact extraction by identifying and resolving incomplete and missing facts to support more accurate verification results. Moreover, we introduce FactRBench , a benchmark that evaluates both precision and recall in long-form model responses, whereas prior work primarily focuses on precision. FactRBench provides reference fact sets from advanced LLMs and human-written answers, enabling recall assessment. Empirical evaluations show that VeriFact significantly enhances fact completeness and preserves complex facts with critical relational information, resulting in more accurate factuality evaluation. Benchmarking various open- and close-weight LLMs on FactRBench indicate that larger models within same model family improve precision and recall, but high precision does not always correlate with high recall, underscoring the importance of comprehensive factuality assessment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

FactBench: A Dynamic Benchmark for In-the-Wild Language Model Factuality Evaluation

The rapid adoption of language models (LMs) across diverse applications has raised concerns about their factuality, i.e., their consistency with real-world facts. We first present VERIFY (Verification and Evidence RetrIeval for FactualitY evaluation), a pipeline to evaluate LMs' factuality in real-world user interactions. VERIFY considers the verifiability of LM-generated content and categorizes content units as supported, unsupported, or undecidable based on Web-retrieved evidence. Importantly, factuality judgment by VERIFY correlates better with human evaluations than existing methods. Using VERIFY, we identify "hallucination prompts" across diverse topics, i.e., those eliciting the highest rates of incorrect (unsupported) and inconclusive (undecidable) LM responses. These prompts form FACTBENCH, a dataset of 1K prompts across 150 fine-grained topics. Our dataset captures emerging factuality challenges in real-world LM interactions and can be regularly updated with new prompts. We benchmark widely-used LMs from GPT, Gemini, and Llama families on FACTBENCH, yielding the following key findings: (i) Proprietary models exhibit better factuality, with decreased performance from Easy to Hard hallucination prompts. (ii) Llama3.1-405B-Instruct shows comparable or lower factual precision than Llama3.1-70B-Instruct across all evaluation methods due to its higher subjectivity that leads to more content labeled as undecidable. (iii) Gemini1.5-Pro shows a significantly higher refusal rate, with over-refusal in 25% of cases.

cs.CL↗