Jackson Trager

Jackson Trager, Alireza S. Ziabari, Elnaz Rahmati et al.

Moral framing and sentiment can affect a variety of online and offline behaviors, including donation, environmental action, political engagement, and protest. Various computational methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have been used to detect moral sentiment from textual data, but achieving strong performance in such subjective tasks requires large, hand-annotated datasets. Previous corpora annotated for moral sentiment have proven valuable, and have generated new insights both within NLP and across the social sciences, but have been limited to Twitter. To facilitate improving our understanding of the role of moral rhetoric, we present the Moral Foundations Reddit Corpus, a collection of 16,123 English Reddit comments that have been curated from 12 distinct subreddits, hand-annotated by at least three trained annotators for 8 categories of moral sentiment (i.e., Care, Proportionality, Equality, Purity, Authority, Loyalty, Thin Morality, Implicit/Explicit Morality) based on the updated Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) framework. We evaluate baselines using large language models (Llama3-8B, Ministral-8B) in zero-shot, few-shot, and PEFT settings, comparing their performance to fine-tuned encoder-only models like BERT. The results show that LLMs continue to lag behind fine-tuned encoders on this subjective task, underscoring the ongoing need for human-annotated moral corpora for AI alignment evaluation. Keywords: moral sentiment annotation, moral values, moral foundations theory, multi-label text classification, large language models, benchmark dataset, evaluation and alignment resource

Francielle Vargas, Jackson Trager, Diego Alves et al.

Hate speech detection models rely on surface-level lexical features, increasing vulnerability to spurious correlations and limiting robustness, cultural contextualization, and interpretability. We propose Supervised Moral Rationale Attention (SMRA), the first self-explaining hate speech detection framework to incorporate moral rationales as direct supervision for attention alignment. Based on Moral Foundations Theory, SMRA aligns token-level attention with expert-annotated moral rationales, guiding models to attend to morally salient spans rather than spurious lexical patterns. Unlike prior rationale-supervised or post-hoc approaches, SMRA integrates moral rationale supervision directly into the training objective, producing inherently interpretable and contextualized explanations. To support our framework, we also introduce HateBRMoralXplain, a Brazilian Portuguese benchmark dataset annotated with hate labels, moral categories, token-level moral rationales, and socio-political metadata. Across binary hate speech detection and multi-label moral sentiment classification, SMRA consistently improves performance (e.g., +0.9 and +1.5 F1, respectively) while substantially enhancing explanation faithfulness, increasing IoU F1 (+7.4 pp) and Token F1 (+5.0 pp). Although explanations become more concise, sufficiency improves (+2.3 pp) and fairness remains stable, indicating more faithful rationales without performance or bias trade-offs

Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Suhaib Abdurahman, Zhivar Sourati et al.

Socio-cognitive benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) often fail to predict real-world behavior, even when models achieve high benchmark scores. Prior work has attributed this evaluation-deployment gap to problems of measurement and validity. While these critiques are insightful, we argue that they overlook a more fundamental issue: many socio-cognitive evaluations proceed without an explicit theoretical specification of the target capability, leaving the assumptions linking task performance to competence implicit. Without this theoretical grounding, benchmarks that exercise only narrow subsets of a capability are routinely misinterpreted as evidence of broad competence: a gap that creates a systemic validity illusion by masking the failure to evaluate the capability's other essential dimensions. To address this gap, we make two contributions. First, we diagnose and formalize this theory gap as a foundational failure that undermines measurement and enables systematic overgeneralization of benchmark results. Second, we introduce the Theory Trace Card (TTC), a lightweight documentation artifact designed to accompany socio-cognitive evaluations, which explicitly outlines the theoretical basis of an evaluation, the components of the target capability it exercises, its operationalization, and its limitations. We argue that TTCs enhance the interpretability and reuse of socio-cognitive evaluations by making explicit the full validity chain, which links theory, task operationalization, scoring, and limitations, without modifying benchmarks or requiring agreement on a single theory.

Zhivar Sourati, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Meltem Ozcan et al.

Language is far more than a communication tool. A wealth of information - including but not limited to the identities, psychological states, and social contexts of its users - can be gleaned through linguistic markers, and such insights are routinely leveraged across diverse fields ranging from product development and marketing to healthcare. In four studies utilizing experimental and observational methods, we demonstrate that the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) as writing assistants is linked to notable declines in linguistic diversity and may interfere with the societal and psychological insights language provides. We show that while the core content of texts is retained when LLMs polish and rewrite texts, not only do they homogenize writing styles, but they also alter stylistic elements in a way that selectively amplifies certain dominant characteristics or biases while suppressing others - emphasizing conformity over individuality. By varying LLMs, prompts, classifiers, and contexts, we show that these trends are robust and consistent. Our findings highlight a wide array of risks associated with linguistic homogenization, including compromised diagnostic processes and personalization efforts, the exacerbation of existing divides and barriers to equity in settings like personnel selection where language plays a critical role in assessing candidates' qualifications, communication skills, and cultural fit, and the undermining of efforts for cultural preservation.

Marcus Ma, Cole Johnson, Nolan Bridges et al.

Third-party annotation is the status quo for labeling text, but egocentric information such as sentiment and belief can at best only be approximated by a third-person proxy. We introduce author labeling, an annotation technique where the writer of the document itself annotates the data at the moment of creation. We collaborate with a commercial chatbot with over 20,000 users to deploy an author labeling annotation system. This system identifies task-relevant queries, generates on-the-fly labeling questions, and records authors' answers in real time. We train and deploy an online-learning model architecture for product recommendation with author-labeled data to improve performance. We train our model to minimize the prediction error on questions generated for a set of predetermined subjective beliefs using author-labeled responses. Our model achieves a 537% improvement in click-through rate compared to an industry advertising baseline running concurrently. We then compare the quality and practicality of author labeling to three traditional annotation approaches for sentiment analysis and find author labeling to be higher quality, faster to acquire, and cheaper. These findings reinforce existing literature that annotations, especially for egocentric and subjective beliefs, are significantly higher quality when labeled by the author rather than a third party. To facilitate broader scientific adoption, we release an author labeling service for the research community at https://academic.echogroup.ai.

Preni Golazizian, Elnaz Rahmati, Jackson Trager et al.

Traffic stops are among the most frequent police-civilian interactions, and body-worn cameras (BWCs) provide a unique record of how these encounters unfold. Respect is a central dimension of these interactions, shaping public trust and perceived legitimacy, yet its interpretation is inherently subjective and shaped by lived experience, rendering community-specific perspectives a critical consideration. Leveraging unprecedented access to Los Angeles Police Department BWC footage, we introduce the first large-scale traffic-stop dataset annotated with respect ratings and free-text rationales from multiple perspectives. By sampling annotators from police-affiliated, justice-system-impacted, and non-affiliated Los Angeles residents, we enable the systematic study of perceptual differences across diverse communities. To this end, we (i) develop a domain-specific evaluation rubric grounded in procedural justice theory, LAPD training materials, and extensive fieldwork; (ii) introduce a rubric-driven preference data construction framework for perspective-consistent alignment; and (iii) propose a perspective-aware modeling framework that predicts personalized respect ratings and generates annotator-specific rationales for both officers and civilian drivers from traffic-stop transcripts. Across all three annotator groups, our approach improves both rating prediction performance and rationale alignment. Our perspective-aware framework enables law enforcement to better understand diverse community expectations, providing a vital tool for building public trust and procedural legitimacy.

Georgios Chochlakis, Jackson Trager, Vedant Jhaveri et al.

We propose Semantic F1 Scores, novel evaluation metrics for subjective or fuzzy multi-label classification that quantify semantic relatedness between predicted and gold labels. Unlike the conventional F1 metrics that treat semantically related predictions as complete failures, Semantic F1 incorporates a label similarity matrix to compute soft precision-like and recall-like scores, from which the Semantic F1 scores are derived. Unlike existing similarity-based metrics, our novel two-step precision-recall formulation enables the comparison of label sets of arbitrary sizes without discarding labels or forcing matches between dissimilar labels. By granting partial credit for semantically related but nonidentical labels, Semantic F1 better reflects the realities of domains marked by human disagreement or fuzzy category boundaries. In this way, it provides fairer evaluations: it recognizes that categories overlap, that annotators disagree, and that downstream decisions based on similar predictions lead to similar outcomes. Through theoretical justification and extensive empirical validation on synthetic and real data, we show that Semantic F1 demonstrates greater interpretability and ecological validity. Because it requires only a domain-appropriate similarity matrix, which is robust to misspecification, and not a rigid ontology, it is applicable across tasks and modalities.

Jackson Trager, Francielle Vargas, Diego Alves et al.

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

Benjamin A. T. Grahama, Lauren Brown, Georgios Chochlakis et al.

Interactions between the government officials and civilians affect public wellbeing and the state legitimacy that is necessary for the functioning of democratic society. Police officers, the most visible and contacted agents of the state, interact with the public more than 20 million times a year during traffic stops. Today, these interactions are regularly recorded by body-worn cameras (BWCs), which are lauded as a means to enhance police accountability and improve police-public interactions. However, the timely analysis of these recordings is hampered by a lack of reliable automated tools that can enable the analysis of these complex and contested police-public interactions. This article proposes an approach to developing new multi-perspective, multimodal machine learning (ML) tools to analyze the audio, video, and transcript information from this BWC footage. Our approach begins by identifying the aspects of communication most salient to different stakeholders, including both community members and police officers. We move away from modeling approaches built around the existence of a single ground truth and instead utilize new advances in soft labeling to incorporate variation in how different observers perceive the same interactions. We argue that this inclusive approach to the conceptualization and design of new ML tools is broadly applicable to the study of communication and development of analytic tools across domains of human interaction, including education, medicine, and the workplace.