Jiqun Liu

Xi Wang, Hossein A. Rahmani, Jiqun Liu et al.

Conversational Recommendation System (CRS) is a rapidly growing research area that has gained significant attention alongside advancements in language modelling techniques. However, the current state of conversational recommendation faces numerous challenges due to its relative novelty and limited existing contributions. In this study, we delve into benchmark datasets for developing CRS models and address potential biases arising from the feedback loop inherent in multi-turn interactions, including selection bias and multiple popularity bias variants. Drawing inspiration from the success of generative data via using language models and data augmentation techniques, we present two novel strategies, 'Once-Aug' and 'PopNudge', to enhance model performance while mitigating biases. Through extensive experiments on ReDial and TG-ReDial benchmark datasets, we show a consistent improvement of CRS techniques with our data augmentation approaches and offer additional insights on addressing multiple newly formulated biases.

Nuo Chen, Jiqun Liu, Xiaoyu Dong et al.

Cognitive biases are systematic deviations in thinking that lead to irrational judgments and problematic decision-making, extensively studied across various fields. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown advanced understanding capabilities but may inherit human biases from their training data. While social biases in LLMs have been well-studied, cognitive biases have received less attention, with existing research focusing on specific scenarios. The broader impact of cognitive biases on LLMs in various decision-making contexts remains underexplored. We investigated whether LLMs are influenced by the threshold priming effect in relevance judgments, a core task and widely-discussed research topic in the Information Retrieval (IR) coummunity. The priming effect occurs when exposure to certain stimuli unconsciously affects subsequent behavior and decisions. Our experiment employed 10 topics from the TREC 2019 Deep Learning passage track collection, and tested AI judgments under different document relevance scores, batch lengths, and LLM models, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, LLaMa2-13B and LLaMa2-70B. Results showed that LLMs tend to give lower scores to later documents if earlier ones have high relevance, and vice versa, regardless of the combination and model used. Our finding demonstrates that LLM%u2019s judgments, similar to human judgments, are also influenced by threshold priming biases, and suggests that researchers and system engineers should take into account potential human-like cognitive biases in designing, evaluating, and auditing LLMs in IR tasks and beyond.

Nuo Chen, Hanpei Fang, Piaohong Wang et al.

Recent studies have shown that prompting can enable large language models (LLMs) to simulate specific personality traits and produce behaviors that align with those traits. However, there is limited understanding of how these simulated personalities influence critical web search decisions, specifically relevance assessment. Moreover, few studies have examined how simulated personalities impact confidence calibration, specifically the tendencies toward overconfidence or underconfidence. This gap exists even though psychological literature suggests these biases are trait-specific, often linking high extraversion to overconfidence and high neuroticism to underconfidence. To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive study evaluating multiple LLMs, including commercial models and open-source models, prompted to simulate Big Five personality traits. We tested these models across three test collections (TREC DL 2019, TREC DL 2020, and LLMJudge), collecting two key outputs for each query-document pair: a relevance judgment and a self-reported confidence score. The findings show that personalities such as low agreeableness consistently align more closely with human labels than the unprompted condition. Additionally, low conscientiousness performs well in balancing the suppression of both overconfidence and underconfidence. We also observe that relevance scores and confidence distributions vary systematically across different personalities. Based on the above findings, we incorporate personality-conditioned scores and confidence as features in a random forest classifier. This approach achieves performance that surpasses the best single-personality condition on a new dataset (TREC DL 2021), even with limited training data. These findings highlight that personality-derived confidence offers a complementary predictive signal, paving the way for more reliable and human-aligned LLM evaluators.

Chuan Meng, Jiqun Liu, Mohammad Aliannejadi et al.

Using large language models (LLMs) to predict relevance judgments has shown promising results. Most studies treat this task as a distinct research line, e.g., focusing on prompt design for predicting relevance labels given a query and passage. However, predicting relevance judgments is essentially a form of relevance prediction, a problem extensively studied in tasks such as re-ranking. Despite this potential overlap, little research has explored reusing or adapting established re-ranking methods to predict relevance judgments, leading to potential resource waste and redundant development. To bridge this gap, we reproduce re-rankers in a re-ranker-as-relevance-judge setup. We design two adaptation strategies: (i) using binary tokens (e.g., "true" and "false") generated by a re-ranker as direct judgments, and (ii) converting continuous re-ranking scores into binary labels via thresholding. We perform extensive experiments on TREC-DL 2019 to 2023 with 8 re-rankers from 3 families, ranging from 220M to 32B, and analyse the evaluation bias exhibited by re-ranker-based judges. Results show that re-ranker-based relevance judges, under both strategies, can outperform UMBRELA, a state-of-the-art LLM-based relevance judge, in around 40% to 50% of the cases; they also exhibit strong self-preference towards their own and same-family re-rankers, as well as cross-family bias.

Victor De Lima, Jiqun Liu, Grace Hui Yang

Information ecosystems increasingly shape how people internalize exposure to adverse digital experiences, raising concerns about the long-term consequences for information health. In modern search and recommendation systems, ranking and personalization policies play a central role in shaping such exposure and its long-term effects on users. To study these effects in a controlled setting, we present FrameRef, a large-scale dataset of 1,073,740 systematically reframed claims across five framing dimensions: authoritative, consensus, emotional, prestige, and sensationalist, and propose a simulation-based framework for modeling sequential information exposure and reinforcement dynamics characteristic of ranking and recommendation systems. Within this framework, we construct framing-sensitive agent personas by fine-tuning language models with framing-conditioned loss attenuation, inducing targeted biases while preserving overall task competence. Using Monte Carlo trajectory sampling, we show that small, systematic shifts in acceptance and confidence can compound over time, producing substantial divergence in cumulative information health trajectories. Human evaluation further confirms that FrameRef's generated framings measurably affect human judgment. Together, our dataset and framework provide a foundation for systematic information health research through simulation, complementing and informing responsible human-centered research. We release FrameRef, code, documentation, human evaluation data, and persona adapter models at https://github.com/infosenselab/frameref.

Xi Wang, Mengdie Zhuang, Jiqun Liu

Human problem-solving is enriched by a diversity of styles and personality traits, yet the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has largely prioritized uniform performance benchmarks that favour specific behavioural tendencies such as assertiveness. To investigate how diverse experiences shape machine personality and influence problem-solving, this study employs continued pre-training to expose models to domain-specific texts in an unsupervised manner, simulating the accumulation of experience. By adapting the Big Five framework via the Machine Personality Inventory (MPI), we quantify the personality traits of these model variants and analyse their relationship to linguistic style and reasoning behaviour. The findings reveal that model competence is bimodal, peaking at "Expressive Generalists" and "Suppressed Specialists," while identifying a "Suppression Advantage" where reduced social traits enhance complex reasoning performance. This study further establishes a causal link between training data linguistics, such as imperative frequency, and lexical diversity, providing a roadmap for "Personality Engineering".

Jiqun Liu, Jiangen He

Can AI be cognitively biased in automated information judgment tasks? Despite recent progresses in measuring and mitigating social and algorithmic biases in AI and large language models (LLMs), it is not clear to what extent LLMs behave "rationally", or if they are also vulnerable to human cognitive bias triggers. To address this open problem, our study, consisting of a crowdsourcing user experiment and a LLM-enabled simulation experiment, compared the credibility assessments by LLM and human judges under potential decoy effects in an information retrieval (IR) setting, and empirically examined the extent to which LLMs are cognitively biased in COVID-19 medical (mis)information assessment tasks compared to traditional human assessors as a baseline. The results, collected from a between-subject user experiment and a LLM-enabled replicate experiment, demonstrate that 1) Larger and more recent LLMs tend to show a higher level of consistency and accuracy in distinguishing credible information from misinformation. However, they are more likely to give higher ratings for misinformation due to the presence of a more salient, decoy misinformation result; 2) While decoy effect occurred in both human and LLM assessments, the effect is more prevalent across different conditions and topics in LLM judgments compared to human credibility ratings. In contrast to the generally assumed "rationality" of AI tools, our study empirically confirms the cognitive bias risks embedded in LLM agents, evaluates the decoy impact on LLMs against human credibility assessments, and thereby highlights the complexity and importance of debiasing AI agents and developing psychology-informed AI audit techniques and policies for automated judgment tasks and beyond.

Jiqun Liu, Jamshed Karimnazarov, Ryen W. White

Functional fixedness, a cognitive bias that restricts users' interactions with a new system or tool to expected or familiar ways, limits the full potential of Large Language Model (LLM)-enabled chat search, especially in complex and exploratory tasks. To investigate its impact, we conducted a crowdsourcing study with 450 participants, each completing one of six decision-making tasks spanning public safety, diet and health management, sustainability, and AI ethics. Participants engaged in a multi-prompt conversation with ChatGPT to address the task, allowing us to compare pre-chat intent-based expectations with observed interactions. We found that: 1) Several aspects of pre-chat expectations are closely associated with users' prior experiences with ChatGPT, search engines, and virtual assistants; 2) Prior system experience shapes language use and prompting behavior. Frequent ChatGPT users reduced deictic terms and hedge words and frequently adjusted prompts. Users with rich search experience maintained structured, less-conversational queries with minimal modifications. Users of virtual assistants favored directive, command-like prompts, reinforcing functional fixedness; 3) When the system failed to meet expectations, participants generated more detailed prompts with increased linguistic diversity, reflecting adaptive shifts. These findings suggest that while preconceived expectations constrain early interactions, unmet expectations can motivate behavioral adaptation. With appropriate system support, this may promote broader exploration of LLM capabilities. This work also introduces a typology for user intents in chat search and highlights the importance of mitigating functional fixedness to support more creative and analytical use of LLMs.

Jiangen He, Jiqun Liu

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making, yet their susceptibility to cognitive biases remains a pressing challenge. This study explores how personality traits influence these biases and evaluates the effectiveness of mitigation strategies across various model architectures. Our findings identify six prevalent cognitive biases, while the sunk cost and group attribution biases exhibit minimal impact. Personality traits play a crucial role in either amplifying or reducing biases, significantly affecting how LLMs respond to debiasing techniques. Notably, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness may generally enhance the efficacy of bias mitigation strategies, suggesting that LLMs exhibiting these traits are more receptive to corrective measures. These findings address the importance of personality-driven bias dynamics and highlight the need for targeted mitigation approaches to improve fairness and reliability in AI-assisted decision-making.

Jiqun Liu

Conversational AI is rapidly becoming a primary interface for information seeking and decision making, yet most systems still assume idealized users. In practice, human reasoning is bounded by limited attention, uneven knowledge, and reliance on heuristics that are adaptive but bias-prone. This article outlines a research pathway grounded in bounded rationality, and argues that conversational AI should be designed to work with human heuristics rather than against them. It identifies key directions for detecting cognitive vulnerability, supporting judgment under uncertainty, and evaluating conversational systems beyond factual accuracy, toward decision quality and cognitive robustness.

Jiangen He, Jiqun Liu

Conversational search systems increasingly provide source citations, yet how citation or source presentation formats influence user engagement remains unclear. We conducted a crowdsourcing user experiment with 394 participants comparing four source presentation designs that varied citation visibility and accessibility: collapsible lists, hover cards, footer lists, and aligned sidebars.High-visibility interfaces generated substantially more hovering on sources, though clicking remained infrequent across all conditions. While interface design showed limited effects on user experience and perception measures, it significantly influenced knowledge, interest, and agreement changes. High-visibility interfaces initially reduced knowledge gain and interest, but these positive effects emerged with increasing source usage. The sidebar condition uniquely increased agreement change. Our findings demonstrate that source presentation alone may not enhance engagement and can even reduce it when insufficient sources are provided.

Jiqun Liu, Nischal Dinesh, Ran Yu

ECHO (Evaluation of Chat, Human behavior, and Outcomes) is an open research platform designed to support reproducible, mixed-method studies of human interaction with both conversational AI systems and Web search engines. It enables researchers from varying disciplines to orchestrate end-to-end experimental workflows that integrate consent and background surveys, chat-based and search-based information-seeking sessions, writing or judgment tasks, and pre- and post-task evaluations within a unified, low-coding-load framework. ECHO logs fine-grained interaction traces and participant responses, and exports structured datasets for downstream analysis. By supporting both chat and search alongside flexible evaluation instruments, ECHO lowers technical barriers for studying learning, decision making, and user experience across different information access paradigms, empowering researchers from information retrieval, HCI, and the social sciences to conduct scalable and reproducible human-centered AI evaluations.