Wen Zeng

Lei Cao, Wen Zeng, Xinyue Wu et al.

Online political hostility is pervasive, yet it remains unclear how toxicity varies across campaign issues and political ideology, and what psychosocial signals and framing accompany toxic expression online. In this work, we present a large-scale analysis of discourse on X (Twitter) during the five weeks surrounding the 2024 U.S. presidential election. We categorize posts into 10 major campaign issues, estimate the ideology of posts using a human-in-the-loop LLM-assisted annotation process, detect harmful content with an LLM-based toxicity detection model, and then examine the psychological drivers of toxic content. We use these annotated data to examine how harmful content varies across campaign issues and ideologies, as well as how emotional tone and moral framing shape toxicity in election discussions. Our results show issue heterogeneity in both the prevalence and intensity of toxicity. Identity-related issues displayed the highest toxicity intensity. As for specific harm categories, harassment was most prevalent and intense across most of the issues, while hate concentrated in identity-centered debates. Partisan posts contained more harmful content than neutral posts, and ideological asymmetries in toxicity varied by issue. In terms of psycholinguistic dimensions, we found that toxic discourse is dominated by high-arousal negative emotions. Left- and right-leaning posts often exhibit similar emotional profiles within the same issue domain, suggesting emotional mirroring. Partisan groups frequently rely on overlapping moral foundations, while issue context strongly shapes which moral foundations become most salient. These findings provide a fine-grained account of toxic political discourse on social media and highlight that online political toxicity is highly context-dependent, underscoring the need for issue-sensitive approaches to measuring and mitigating it.

Zixiao Huang, Wen Zeng, Tianyu Fu et al.

LLM-based search agents achieve strong performance but suffer from severe latency, as each step requires serialized LLM reasoning followed by action of tool execution. We revisit this bottleneck through the lens of speculation. While traditional predict-verify speculation paradigm can break serial execution, its benefit remains limited, as it retains the full original workload and adds extra inference overhead. We observe that early agent steps often involve simple evidence-gathering, where correct actions can often be predicted without full reasoning. Building on these observations, we present SPAgent, an algorithm-system co-design framework that expands the role of speculation in search agents to reduce latency. Algorithmically, SPAgent introduces a two-phase adaptive speculation mechanism that selectively omits verification when safe. System-wise, a two-level scheduler regulates speculative requests based on engine load to ensure speculation remains beneficial. We implement SPAgent in real-world systems. Across extensive experimental settings, SPAgent achieves up to $1.65\times$ end-to-end speedup while maintaining same or even achieving higher accuracy, enabling practical deployment of multi-step search agents.

Wen Zeng, Chunyan Mu, Maciej Koutny et al.

The extent and importance of cloud computing is rapidly increasing due to the ever increasing demand for internet services and communications. Instead of building individual information technology infrastructure to host databases or software, a third party can host them in its large server clouds. Large organizations may wish to keep sensitive information on their more restricted servers rather than in the public cloud. This has led to the introduction of federated cloud computing (FCC) in which both public and private cloud computing resources are used.