Didi Zhou

Houjiang Liu, Anubrata Das, Alexander Boltz et al.

While many Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques have been proposed for fact-checking, both academic research and fact-checking organizations report limited adoption of such NLP work due to poor alignment with fact-checker practices, values, and needs. To address this, we investigate a co-design method, Matchmaking for AI, to enable fact-checkers, designers, and NLP researchers to collaboratively identify what fact-checker needs should be addressed by technology, and to brainstorm ideas for potential solutions. Co-design sessions we conducted with 22 professional fact-checkers yielded a set of 11 design ideas that offer a "north star", integrating fact-checker criteria into novel NLP design concepts. These concepts range from pre-bunking misinformation, efficient and personalized monitoring misinformation, proactively reducing fact-checker potential biases, and collaborative writing fact-check reports. Our work provides new insights into both human-centered fact-checking research and practice and AI co-design research.

Jen-tse Huang, Didi Zhou, Faith Kamau et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation. However, the robustness of these models against subtle linguistic variations, specifically stigmatizing language (SL) commonly found in human-authored clinical notes, remains critically under-explored. In this work, we investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text. We systematically evaluate nine frontier LLMs across four stigmatized medical conditions, utilizing clinical vignettes injected with varying intensities and phenotypes of SL (doubt, blame, and maligning). Our results demonstrate that all evaluated models exhibit substantial bias, with clinical decision-making significantly skewed towards less aggressive patient management. Notably, we observe a high sensitivity to linguistic framing, where a single SL sentence is sufficient to alter model outputs, revealing a clear dose-response relationship. Furthermore, we evaluate standard prompt-based mitigation strategies, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and model self-debiasing. These approaches show limited efficacy; models struggle to explicitly identify SL while remaining implicitly influenced by it. Our findings expose a critical vulnerability in current LLMs regarding fairness and robustness in clinical NLP, underscoring the need for rigorous algorithmic guardrails to prevent the automation of health disparities.