Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz

Jan Kocoń, Igor Cichecki, Oliwier Kaszyca et al.

OpenAI has released the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) and revolutionized the approach in artificial intelligence to human-model interaction. Several publications on ChatGPT evaluation test its effectiveness on well-known natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the existing studies are mostly non-automated and tested on a very limited scale. In this work, we examined ChatGPT's capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks, most of them subjective even to humans, such as sentiment analysis, emotion recognition, offensiveness, and stance detection. In contrast, the other tasks require more objective reasoning like word sense disambiguation, linguistic acceptability, and question answering. We also evaluated GPT-4 model on five selected subsets of NLP tasks. We automated ChatGPT and GPT-4 prompting process and analyzed more than 49k responses. Our comparison of its results with available State-of-the-Art (SOTA) solutions showed that the average loss in quality of the ChatGPT model was about 25% for zero-shot and few-shot evaluation. For GPT-4 model, a loss for semantic tasks is significantly lower than for ChatGPT. We showed that the more difficult the task (lower SOTA performance), the higher the ChatGPT loss. It especially refers to pragmatic NLP problems like emotion recognition. We also tested the ability to personalize ChatGPT responses for selected subjective tasks via Random Contextual Few-Shot Personalization, and we obtained significantly better user-based predictions. Additional qualitative analysis revealed a ChatGPT bias, most likely due to the rules imposed on human trainers by OpenAI. Our results provide the basis for a fundamental discussion of whether the high quality of recent predictive NLP models can indicate a tool's usefulness to society and how the learning and validation procedures for such systems should be established.

Teddy Ferdinan, Bartłomiej Koptyra, Mikołaj Langner et al.

While Reasoning Language Models (RLMs) are rapidly emerging as powerful tools for scientific research, their impact is primarily concentrated in "hard science" fields. The slow -- or lack of -- adoption of RLMs in other branches of science is causing a widening gap in research productivity. In this survey, we provide the first comprehensive analysis of RLM adoption across 28 scientific disciplines following the classification used by the European Research Council (ERC), spanning the Social Sciences and Humanities, Physical Sciences and Engineering, and Life Sciences. We examine how RLMs are developed, evaluated, and applied across disciplines. Furthermore, we introduce a maturity-oriented assessment framework based on available domain-specific development and evaluation resources, revealing substantial disparities in RLM maturity that become even more pronounced when only publicly available resources are considered. Finally, we highlight current implementation paradigms that are gaining popularity across disciplines, current challenges, and future directions in enabling RLM adoption across science.

Maciej Markiewicz, Beata Bajcar, Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz et al.

Human data annotation, especially when involving experts, is often treated as an objective reference. However, many annotation tasks are inherently subjective, and annotators' judgments may evolve over time. This study investigates changes in the quality of annotators' work from a competence perspective during a process of social influence recognition. The study involved 25 annotators from five different groups, including both experts and non-experts, who annotated a dataset of 1,021 dialogues with 20 social influence techniques, along with intentions, reactions, and consequences. An initial subset of 150 texts was annotated twice - before and after the main annotation process - to enable comparison. To measure competence shifts, we combined qualitative and quantitative analyses of the annotated data, semi-structured interviews with annotators, self-assessment surveys, and Large Language Model training and evaluation on the comparison dataset. The results indicate a significant increase in annotators' self-perceived competence and confidence. Moreover, observed changes in data quality suggest that the annotation process may enhance annotator competence and that this effect is more pronounced in expert groups. The observed shifts in annotator competence have a visible impact on the performance of LLMs trained on their annotated data.

Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Dawid Płudowski, Filip Kołodziejczyk et al.

This study explores how the Large Language Models (LLMs) adjust linguistic features to create personalized persuasive outputs. While research showed that LLMs personalize outputs, a gap remains in understanding the linguistic features of their persuasive capabilities. We identified 13 linguistic features crucial for influencing personalities across different levels of the Big Five model of personality. We analyzed how prompts with personality trait information influenced the output of 19 LLMs across five model families. The findings show that models use more anxiety-related words for neuroticism, increase achievement-related words for conscientiousness, and employ fewer cognitive processes words for openness to experience. Some model families excel at adapting language for openness to experience, others for conscientiousness, while only one model adapts language for neuroticism. Our findings show how LLMs tailor responses based on personality cues in prompts, indicating their potential to create persuasive content affecting the mind and well-being of the recipients.

Tomasz Adamczyk, Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Beata Bajcar et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into educational settings, understanding their potential biases is critical. This study examines sociodemographic biases in LLM-based educational counselling. We evaluate responses from six LLMs answering questions about 900 vignettes describing students in diverse circumstances. Each vignette is systematically tested across 14 sociodemographic identifiers - spanning race and gender, socioeconomic status, and immigrant background - along with a control condition, yielding 243,000 model responses. Our findings indicate that (1) all models exhibit measurable biases, (2) bias patterns partially align with documented human biases but diverge in notable ways, (3) the magnitude of these biases is strongly influenced by the precision of the student descriptions, where vague or minimal information amplifies disparities nearly threefold, while concrete, individualised metrics substantially reduce them, and (4) bias profiles vary substantially across models. These results demonstrate the importance of context-rich and personalised educational representations, suggesting that AI-driven educational decisions benefit from detailed student-specific information to promote fairness and equity.

Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Beata Bajcar, Jolanta Babiak et al.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. This saying fits with the way large language models (LLMs) are trained, which, instead of being rewarded for correctness, are increasingly rewarded for pleasing the recipient. So, they are increasingly effective at persuading us that their answers are valuable. But what tricks do they use in this persuasion? In this study, we examine what are the psycholinguistic features of the responses used by twelve different language models. By grouping response content according to rational or emotional prompts and exploring social influence principles employed by LLMs, we ask whether and how we can mitigate the risks of LLM-driven mass misinformation. We position this study within the broader discourse on human-centred AI, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary approaches to mitigate cognitive and societal risks posed by persuasive AI responses.

Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Beata Bajcar, Aleksander Szczęsny et al.

In this work we present the Social Influence Technique Taxonomy (SITT), a comprehensive framework of 58 empirically grounded techniques organized into nine categories, designed to detect subtle forms of social influence in textual content. We also investigate the LLMs ability to identify various forms of social influence. Building on interdisciplinary foundations, we construct the SITT dataset -- a 746-dialogue corpus annotated by 11 experts in Polish and translated into English -- to evaluate the ability of LLMs to identify these techniques. Using a hierarchical multi-label classification setup, we benchmark five LLMs, including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5, Llama-3.1, Mixtral, and PLLuM. Our results show that while some models, notably Claude 3.5, achieved moderate success (F1 score = 0.45 for categories), overall performance of models remains limited, particularly for context-sensitive techniques. The findings demonstrate key limitations in current LLMs' sensitivity to nuanced linguistic cues and underscore the importance of domain-specific fine-tuning. This work contributes a novel resource and evaluation example for understanding how LLMs detect, classify, and potentially replicate strategies of social influence in natural dialogues.