Pranav Narayanan Venkit

Vipul Gupta, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Hugo Laurençon et al.

As language models (LMs) become increasingly powerful and widely used, it is important to quantify them for sociodemographic bias with potential for harm. Prior measures of bias are sensitive to perturbations in the templates designed to compare performance across social groups, due to factors such as low diversity or limited number of templates. Also, most previous work considers only one NLP task. We introduce Comprehensive Assessment of Language Models (CALM) for robust measurement of two types of universally relevant sociodemographic bias, gender and race. CALM integrates sixteen datasets for question-answering, sentiment analysis and natural language inference. Examples from each dataset are filtered to produce 224 templates with high diversity (e.g., length, vocabulary). We assemble 50 highly frequent person names for each of seven distinct demographic groups to generate 78,400 prompts covering the three NLP tasks. Our empirical evaluation shows that CALM bias scores are more robust and far less sensitive than previous bias measurements to perturbations in the templates, such as synonym substitution, or to random subset selection of templates. We apply CALM to 20 large language models, and find that for 2 language model series, larger parameter models tend to be more biased than smaller ones. The T0 series is the least biased model families, of the 20 LLMs investigated here. The code is available at https://github.com/vipulgupta1011/CALM.

Vipul Gupta, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Shomir Wilson et al.

Sociodemographic bias in language models (LMs) has the potential for harm when deployed in real-world settings. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the past decade of research on sociodemographic bias in LMs, organized into a typology that facilitates examining the different aims: types of bias, quantifying bias, and debiasing techniques. We track the evolution of the latter two questions, then identify current trends and their limitations, as well as emerging techniques. To guide future research towards more effective and reliable solutions, and to help authors situate their work within this broad landscape, we conclude with a checklist of open questions.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Sanjana Gautam, Ruchi Panchanadikar et al.

Little attention is placed on analyzing nationality bias in language models, especially when nationality is highly used as a factor in increasing the performance of social NLP models. This paper examines how a text generation model, GPT-2, accentuates pre-existing societal biases about country-based demonyms. We generate stories using GPT-2 for various nationalities and use sensitivity analysis to explore how the number of internet users and the country's economic status impacts the sentiment of the stories. To reduce the propagation of biases through large language models (LLM), we explore the debiasing method of adversarial triggering. Our results show that GPT-2 demonstrates significant bias against countries with lower internet users, and adversarial triggering effectively reduces the same.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Mukund Srinath, Sanjana Gautam et al.

We conduct an inquiry into the sociotechnical aspects of sentiment analysis (SA) by critically examining 189 peer-reviewed papers on their applications, models, and datasets. Our investigation stems from the recognition that SA has become an integral component of diverse sociotechnical systems, exerting influence on both social and technical users. By delving into sociological and technological literature on sentiment, we unveil distinct conceptualizations of this term in domains such as finance, government, and medicine. Our study exposes a lack of explicit definitions and frameworks for characterizing sentiment, resulting in potential challenges and biases. To tackle this issue, we propose an ethics sheet encompassing critical inquiries to guide practitioners in ensuring equitable utilization of SA. Our findings underscore the significance of adopting an interdisciplinary approach to defining sentiment in SA and offer a pragmatic solution for its implementation.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Mukund Srinath, Shomir Wilson

We analyze sentiment analysis and toxicity detection models to detect the presence of explicit bias against people with disability (PWD). We employ the bias identification framework of Perturbation Sensitivity Analysis to examine conversations related to PWD on social media platforms, specifically Twitter and Reddit, in order to gain insight into how disability bias is disseminated in real-world social settings. We then create the \textit{Bias Identification Test in Sentiment} (BITS) corpus to quantify explicit disability bias in any sentiment analysis and toxicity detection models. Our study utilizes BITS to uncover significant biases in four open AIaaS (AI as a Service) sentiment analysis tools, namely TextBlob, VADER, Google Cloud Natural Language API, DistilBERT and two toxicity detection models, namely two versions of Toxic-BERT. Our findings indicate that all of these models exhibit statistically significant explicit bias against PWD.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Sanjana Gautam, Ruchi Panchanadikar et al.

We investigate the potential for nationality biases in natural language processing (NLP) models using human evaluation methods. Biased NLP models can perpetuate stereotypes and lead to algorithmic discrimination, posing a significant challenge to the fairness and justice of AI systems. Our study employs a two-step mixed-methods approach that includes both quantitative and qualitative analysis to identify and understand the impact of nationality bias in a text generation model. Through our human-centered quantitative analysis, we measure the extent of nationality bias in articles generated by AI sources. We then conduct open-ended interviews with participants, performing qualitative coding and thematic analysis to understand the implications of these biases on human readers. Our findings reveal that biased NLP models tend to replicate and amplify existing societal biases, which can translate to harm if used in a sociotechnical setting. The qualitative analysis from our interviews offers insights into the experience readers have when encountering such articles, highlighting the potential to shift a reader's perception of a country. These findings emphasize the critical role of public perception in shaping AI's impact on society and the need to correct biases in AI systems.

Sourojit Ghosh, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Sanjana Gautam et al.

Our research investigates the impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) models, specifically text-to-image generators (T2Is), on the representation of non-Western cultures, with a focus on Indian contexts. Despite the transformative potential of T2Is in content creation, concerns have arisen regarding biases that may lead to misrepresentations and marginalizations. Through a community-centered approach and grounded theory analysis of 5 focus groups from diverse Indian subcultures, we explore how T2I outputs to English prompts depict Indian culture and its subcultures, uncovering novel representational harms such as exoticism and cultural misappropriation. These findings highlight the urgent need for inclusive and culturally sensitive T2I systems. We propose design guidelines informed by a sociotechnical perspective, aiming to address these issues and contribute to the development of more equitable and representative GAI technologies globally. Our work also underscores the necessity of adopting a community-centered approach to comprehend the sociotechnical dynamics of these models, complementing existing work in this space while identifying and addressing the potential negative repercussions and harms that may arise when these models are deployed on a global scale.

Prafulla Kumar Choubey, Kung-Hsiang Huang, Pranav Narayanan Venkit et al.

Enterprise deep research often fails to produce decision-ready reports due to uneven information coverage, context explosion, and premature stopping. We propose a scalable Enterprise Deep Research (EDR) architecture to address these failures. Our system (i) decomposes requests into coverage-driven objectives via outline generation with reflection, (ii) localizes context with dependency-guided execution and explicit information sharing, and (iii) enforces evidence-based completion criteria so agents iteratively collect information until sufficiency conditions are met. We evaluate on an internal sales enablement task and the public DeepResearch Bench benchmark, where our proposed system design achieves the strongest overall performance compared with competitive deep-research baselines. The results show that dependency-controlled context and explicit evidence sufficiency criteria reduce premature stopping and improve the consistency and depth of enterprise research outputs.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit

The rapid growth in the usage and applications of Natural Language Processing (NLP) in various sociotechnical solutions has highlighted the need for a comprehensive understanding of bias and its impact on society. While research on bias in NLP has expanded, several challenges persist that require attention. These include the limited focus on sociodemographic biases beyond race and gender, the narrow scope of analysis predominantly centered on models, and the technocentric implementation approaches. This paper addresses these challenges and advocates for a more interdisciplinary approach to understanding bias in NLP. The work is structured into three facets, each exploring a specific aspect of bias in NLP.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Yu Li, Yada Pruksachatkun et al.

Synthetic personas are widely used to condition large language models (LLMs) for social simulation, yet most personas are still constructed from coarse sociodemographic attributes or summaries. We revisit persona creation by introducing SCOPE, a socially grounded framework for persona construction and evaluation, built from a 141-item, two-hour sociopsychological protocol collected from 124 U.S.-based participants. Across seven models, we find that demographic-only personas are a structural bottleneck: demographics explain only ~1.5% of variance in human response similarity. Adding sociopsychological facets improves behavioral prediction and reduces over-accentuation, and non-demographic personas based on values and identity achieve strong alignment with substantially lower bias. These trends generalize to SimBench (441 aligned questions), where SCOPE personas outperform default prompting and NVIDIA Nemotron personas, and SCOPE augmentation improves Nemotron-based personas. Our results indicate that persona quality depends on sociopsychological structure rather than demographic templates or summaries.

Yu Li, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Yada Pruksachatkun et al.

Simulating real personalities with large language models requires grounding generation in authentic personal data. Existing evaluation approaches rely on demographic surveys, personality questionnaires, or short AI-led interviews as proxies, but lack direct assessment against what individuals actually said. We address this gap with an interview-grounded evaluation framework for personality simulation at a large scale. We extract over 671,000 question-answer pairs from 23,000 verified interview transcripts across 1,000 public personalities, each with an average of 11.5 hours of interview content. We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework with four complementary metrics measuring content similarity, factual consistency, personality alignment, and factual knowledge retention. Through systematic comparison, we demonstrate that methods grounded in real interview data substantially outperform those relying solely on biographical profiles or the model's parametric knowledge. We further reveal a trade-off in how interview data is best utilized: retrieval-augmented methods excel at capturing personality style and response quality, while chronological-based methods better preserve factual consistency and knowledge retention. Our evaluation framework enables principled method selection based on application requirements, and our empirical findings provide actionable insights for advancing personality simulation research.

Tatiana Chakravorti, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Sourojit Ghosh et al.

Generative AI tools are increasingly entering academic peer review workflows, raising questions about fairness, accountability, and the legitimacy of evaluative judgment. While these systems promise efficiency gains amid growing reviewer overload, their use introduces new sociotechnical risks. This paper presents a convergent mixed-method study combining discourse analysis of 448 social media posts with interviews with 14 area chairs and program chairs from leading AI and HCI conferences to examine how GenAI is discussed and experienced in peer review. Across both datasets, we find broad agreement that GenAI may be acceptable for limited supportive tasks, such as improving clarity or structuring feedback, but that core evaluative judgments, assessing novelty, contribution, and acceptance, should remain human responsibilities. At the same time, participants highlight concerns about epistemic harm, over-standardization, unclear responsibility, and adversarial risks such as prompt injection. User interviews reveal how structural strain and institutional policy ambiguity shift interpretive and enforcement burdens onto individual scholars, disproportionately affecting junior authors and reviewers. By triangulating public governance discourse with lived review practices, this work reframes AI mediated peer review as a sociotechnical governance challenge and offers recommendations for preserving accountability, trust, and meaningful human oversight. Overall, we argue that AI-assisted peer review is best governed not by blanket bans or detection alone, but by explicitly reserving evaluative judgment for humans while instituting enforceable, role-specific controls that preserve accountability. We conclude with role specific recommendations that formalize the support judgment boundary.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Christopher Graziul, Miranda Ardith Goodman et al.

Radios are essential for the operations of modern police departments, and they function as both a collaborative communication technology and a sociotechnical system. However, little prior research has examined their usage or their connections to individual privacy and the role of race in policing, two growing topics of concern in the US. As a case study, we examine the Chicago Police Department's (CPD's) use of broadcast police communications (BPC) to coordinate the activity of law enforcement officers (LEOs) in the city. From a recently assembled archive of 80,775 hours of BPC associated with CPD operations, we analyze text transcripts of radio transmissions broadcast 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on August 10th, 2018 in one majority Black, one majority white, and one majority Hispanic area of the city (24 hours of audio) to explore three research questions: (1) Do BPC reflect reported racial disparities in policing? (2) How and when is gender, race/ethnicity, and age mentioned in BPC? (3) To what extent do BPC include sensitive information, and who is put at most risk by this practice? (4) To what extent can large language models (LLMs) heighten this risk? We explore the vocabulary and speech acts used by police in BPC, comparing mentions of personal characteristics to local demographics, the personal information shared over BPC, and the privacy concerns that it poses. Analysis indicates (a) policing professionals in the city of Chicago exhibit disproportionate attention to Black members of the public regardless of context, (b) sociodemographic characteristics like gender, race/ethnicity, and age are primarily mentioned in BPC about event information, and (c) disproportionate attention introduces disproportionate privacy risks for Black members of the public.

Sourojit Ghosh, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Sanjana Gautam et al.

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm.

Sanjana Gautam, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Sourojit Ghosh

With the widespread adoption of advanced generative models such as Gemini and GPT, there has been a notable increase in the incorporation of such models into sociotechnical systems, categorized under AI-as-a-Service (AIaaS). Despite their versatility across diverse sectors, concerns persist regarding discriminatory tendencies within these models, particularly favoring selected `majority' demographics across various sociodemographic dimensions. Despite widespread calls for diversification of media representations, marginalized racial and ethnic groups continue to face persistent distortion, stereotyping, and neglect within the AIaaS context. In this work, we provide a critical summary of the state of research in the context of social harms to lead the conversation to focus on their implications. We also present open-ended research questions, guided by our discussion, to help define future research pathways.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Tatiana Chakravorti, Vipul Gupta et al.

We audit how hallucination in large language models (LLMs) is characterized in peer-reviewed literature, using a critical examination of 103 publications across NLP research. Through the examination of the literature, we identify a lack of agreement with the term `hallucination' in the field of NLP. Additionally, to compliment our audit, we conduct a survey with 171 practitioners from the field of NLP and AI to capture varying perspectives on hallucination. Our analysis calls for the necessity of explicit definitions and frameworks outlining hallucination within NLP, highlighting potential challenges, and our survey inputs provide a thematic understanding of the influence and ramifications of hallucination in society.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Philippe Laban, Yilun Zhou et al. · microsoft-research

Large Language Model (LLM)-based applications are graduating from research prototypes to products serving millions of users, influencing how people write and consume information. A prominent example is the appearance of Answer Engines: LLM-based generative search engines supplanting traditional search engines. Answer engines not only retrieve relevant sources to a user query but synthesize answer summaries that cite the sources. To understand these systems' limitations, we first conducted a study with 21 participants, evaluating interactions with answer vs. traditional search engines and identifying 16 answer engine limitations. From these insights, we propose 16 answer engine design recommendations, linked to 8 metrics. An automated evaluation implementing our metrics on three popular engines (You.com, Perplexity.ai, BingChat) quantifies common limitations (e.g., frequent hallucination, inaccurate citation) and unique features (e.g., variation in answer confidence), with results mirroring user study insights. We release our Answer Engine Evaluation benchmark (AEE) to facilitate transparent evaluation of LLM-based applications.

Hangzhi Guo, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Eunchae Jang et al.

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) tools across diverse applications has amplified the importance of addressing societal biases inherent within these technologies. While the NLP community has extensively studied LLM bias, research investigating how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from these systems remains limited. As these technologies become increasingly prevalent, understanding this question is crucial to inform model developers in their efforts to mitigate bias. To address this gap, this work presents the findings from a university-level competition, which challenged participants to design prompts for eliciting biased outputs from GenAI tools. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the competition submissions and identify a diverse set of biases in GenAI and strategies employed by participants to induce bias in GenAI. Our finding provides unique insights into how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from GenAI tools.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Jiayi Li, Yingfan Zhou et al.

As LLMs (large language models) are increasingly used to generate synthetic personas particularly in data-limited domains such as health, privacy, and HCI, it becomes necessary to understand how these narratives represent identity, especially that of minority communities. In this paper, we audit synthetic personas generated by 3 LLMs (GPT4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Deepseek 2.5) through the lens of representational harm, focusing specifically on racial identity. Using a mixed methods approach combining close reading, lexical analysis, and a parameterized creativity framework, we compare 1512 LLM generated personas to human-authored responses. Our findings reveal that LLMs disproportionately foreground racial markers, overproduce culturally coded language, and construct personas that are syntactically elaborate yet narratively reductive. These patterns result in a range of sociotechnical harms, including stereotyping, exoticism, erasure, and benevolent bias, that are often obfuscated by superficially positive narrations. We formalize this phenomenon as algorithmic othering, where minoritized identities are rendered hypervisible but less authentic. Based on these findings, we offer design recommendations for narrative-aware evaluation metrics and community-centered validation protocols for synthetic identity generation.

Xinyu Wang, Sai Koneru, Pranav Narayanan Venkit et al.

As social media has become a predominant mode of communication globally, the rise of abusive content threatens to undermine civil discourse. Recognizing the critical nature of this issue, a significant body of research has been dedicated to developing language models that can detect various types of online abuse, e.g., hate speech, cyberbullying. However, there exists a notable disconnect between platform policies, which often consider the author's intention as a criterion for content moderation, and the current capabilities of detection models, which typically lack efforts to capture intent. This paper examines the role of intent in content moderation systems. We review state of the art detection models and benchmark training datasets for online abuse to assess their awareness and ability to capture intent. We propose strategic changes to the design and development of automated detection and moderation systems to improve alignment with ethical and policy conceptualizations of abuse.

Haoyi Qiu, Yilun Zhou, Pranav Narayanan Venkit et al.

As Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are increasingly deployed in domains such as shopping, health, and news, they are exposed to pervasive persuasive content. A critical question is how these models function as persuadees-how and why they can be influenced by persuasive multimodal inputs. Understanding both their susceptibility to persuasion and the effectiveness of different persuasive strategies is crucial, as overly persuadable models may adopt misleading beliefs, override user preferences, or generate unethical or unsafe outputs when exposed to manipulative messages. We introduce MMPersuade, a unified framework for systematically studying multimodal persuasion dynamics in LVLMs. MMPersuade contributes (i) a comprehensive multimodal dataset that pairs images and videos with established persuasion principles across commercial, subjective and behavioral, and adversarial contexts, and (ii) an evaluation framework that quantifies both persuasion effectiveness and model susceptibility via third-party agreement scoring and self-estimated token probabilities on conversation histories. Our study of six leading LVLMs as persuadees yields three key insights: (i) multimodal inputs substantially increase persuasion effectiveness-and model susceptibility-compared to text alone, especially in misinformation scenarios; (ii) stated prior preferences decrease susceptibility, yet multimodal information maintains its persuasive advantage; and (iii) different strategies vary in effectiveness across contexts, with reciprocity being most potent in commercial and subjective contexts, and credibility and logic prevailing in adversarial contexts. By jointly analyzing persuasion effectiveness and susceptibility, MMPersuade provides a principled foundation for developing models that are robust, preference-consistent, and ethically aligned when engaging with persuasive multimodal content.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Philippe Laban, Yilun Zhou et al. · microsoft-research

Generative search engines and deep research LLM agents promise trustworthy, source-grounded synthesis, yet users regularly encounter overconfidence, weak sourcing, and confusing citation practices. We introduce DeepTRACE, a novel sociotechnically grounded audit framework that turns prior community-identified failure cases into eight measurable dimensions spanning answer text, sources, and citations. DeepTRACE uses statement-level analysis (decomposition, confidence scoring) and builds citation and factual-support matrices to audit how systems reason with and attribute evidence end-to-end. Using automated extraction pipelines for popular public models (e.g., GPT-4.5/5, You.com, Perplexity, Copilot/Bing, Gemini) and an LLM-judge with validated agreement to human raters, we evaluate both web-search engines and deep-research configurations. Our findings show that generative search engines and deep research agents frequently produce one-sided, highly confident responses on debate queries and include large fractions of statements unsupported by their own listed sources. Deep-research configurations reduce overconfidence and can attain high citation thoroughness, but they remain highly one-sided on debate queries and still exhibit large fractions of unsupported statements, with citation accuracy ranging from 40--80% across systems.

Jiayi Li, Yingfan Zhou, Pranav Narayanan Venkit et al.

Natural Language Processing tasks that aim to infer an author's private states, e.g., emotions and opinions, from their written text, typically rely on datasets annotated by third-party annotators. However, the assumption that third-party annotators can accurately capture authors' private states remains largely unexamined. In this study, we present human subjects experiments on emotion recognition tasks that directly compare third-party annotations with first-party (author-provided) emotion labels. Our findings reveal significant limitations in third-party annotations-whether provided by human annotators or large language models (LLMs)-in faithfully representing authors' private states. However, LLMs outperform human annotators nearly across the board. We further explore methods to improve third-party annotation quality. We find that demographic similarity between first-party authors and third-party human annotators enhances annotation performance. While incorporating first-party demographic information into prompts leads to a marginal but statistically significant improvement in LLMs' performance. We introduce a framework for evaluating the limitations of third-party annotations and call for refined annotation practices to accurately represent and model authors' private states.

Jiangshu Du, Yibo Wang, Wenting Zhao et al.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Shomir Wilson

Sociodemographic biases are a common problem for natural language processing, affecting the fairness and integrity of its applications. Within sentiment analysis, these biases may undermine sentiment predictions for texts that mention personal attributes that unbiased human readers would consider neutral. Such discrimination can have great consequences in the applications of sentiment analysis both in the public and private sectors. For example, incorrect inferences in applications like online abuse and opinion analysis in social media platforms can lead to unwanted ramifications, such as wrongful censoring, towards certain populations. In this paper, we address the discrimination against people with disabilities, PWD, done by sentiment analysis and toxicity classification models. We provide an examination of sentiment and toxicity analysis models to understand in detail how they discriminate PWD. We present the Bias Identification Test in Sentiments (BITS), a corpus of 1,126 sentences designed to probe sentiment analysis models for biases in disability. We use this corpus to demonstrate statistically significant biases in four widely used sentiment analysis tools (TextBlob, VADER, Google Cloud Natural Language API and DistilBERT) and two toxicity analysis models trained to predict toxic comments on Jigsaw challenges (Toxic comment classification and Unintended Bias in Toxic comments). The results show that all exhibit strong negative biases on sentences that mention disability. We publicly release BITS Corpus for others to identify potential biases against disability in any sentiment analysis tools and also to update the corpus to be used as a test for other sociodemographic variables as well.