Wenchao Dong

Wenchao Dong, Assem Zhunis, Dongyoung Jeong et al.

Drawing parallels between human cognition and artificial intelligence, we explored how large language models (LLMs) internalize identities imposed by targeted prompts. Informed by Social Identity Theory, these identity assignments lead LLMs to distinguish between "we" (the ingroup) and "they" (the outgroup). This self-categorization generates both ingroup favoritism and outgroup bias. Nonetheless, existing literature has predominantly focused on ingroup favoritism, often overlooking outgroup bias, which is a fundamental source of intergroup prejudice and discrimination. Our experiment addresses this gap by demonstrating that outgroup bias manifests as strongly as ingroup favoritism. Furthermore, we successfully mitigated the inherent pro-liberal, anti-conservative bias in LLMs by guiding them to adopt the perspectives of the initially disfavored group. These results were replicated in the context of gender bias. Our findings highlight the potential to develop more equitable and balanced language models.

Long Phan, Alice Gatti, Ziwen Han et al. · amazon-science, apple-ml

Benchmarks are important tools for tracking the rapid advancements in large language model (LLM) capabilities. However, benchmarks are not keeping pace in difficulty: LLMs now achieve over 90\% accuracy on popular benchmarks like MMLU, limiting informed measurement of state-of-the-art LLM capabilities. In response, we introduce Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge, designed to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind with broad subject coverage. HLE consists of 2,500 questions across dozens of subjects, including mathematics, humanities, and the natural sciences. HLE is developed globally by subject-matter experts and consists of multiple-choice and short-answer questions suitable for automated grading. Each question has a known solution that is unambiguous and easily verifiable, but cannot be quickly answered via internet retrieval. State-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate low accuracy and calibration on HLE, highlighting a significant gap between current LLM capabilities and the expert human frontier on closed-ended academic questions. To inform research and policymaking upon a clear understanding of model capabilities, we publicly release HLE at https://lastexam.ai.

Wenchao Dong, Marcelo S. Locatelli, Virgilio Almeida et al.

Climate change poses a global threat to public health, food security, and economic stability. Addressing it requires evidence-based policies and a nuanced understanding of how the threat is perceived by the public, particularly within visual social media, where narratives quickly evolve through voices of individuals, politicians, NGOs, and institutions. This study investigates climate-related discourse on YouTube within the Brazilian context, a geopolitically significant nation in global environmental negotiations. Through three case studies, we examine (1) which psychological content traits most effectively drive audience engagement, (2) the extent to which these traits influence content popularity, and (3) whether such insights can inform the design of persuasive synthetic campaigns--such as climate denialism--using recent generative language models. Another contribution of this work is the release of a large publicly available dataset of 226K Brazilian YouTube videos and 2.7M user comments on climate change. The dataset includes fine-grained annotations of persuasive strategies, theory-of-mind categorizations in user responses, and typologies of content creators. This resource can help support future research on digital climate communication and the ethical risk of algorithmically amplified narratives and generative media.

Marcelo Sartori Locatelli, Wenchao Dong, Pedro Loures Alzamora et al.

Climate misinformation continues to erode support for climate action, a challenge that is especially acute in the Global South, where high climate vulnerability intersects with development pressures. In rapidly evolving digital ecosystems, misinformation adapts to platform incentives, shifting from overt rejection of climate science toward more subtle narratives that contest proposed solutions. This study integrates large-scale platform data with qualitative content analysis to examine how information systems shape contemporary climate discourse. Using a dataset of 226,775 climate-related YouTube videos from Brazil (2019-2025), we identify two dominant misinformation strategies: traditional denial that disputes scientific evidence and an emerging "new denial" that accepts climate change while undermining mitigation and adaptation policies. We find a pronounced transition to solution-focused narratives that target renewable energy, climate governance, and environmental advocates. New denial content is produced by a wider array of actors, attracts higher engagement, and employs more sophisticated persuasive techniques. These patterns disproportionately affect regions already facing structural inequities and bring broader concerns about platform accountability in unequal information environments and suggest the need for governance approaches capable of addressing new denial, a rapidly adapting form of harmful content that often evades existing moderation policies.

Jiseon Kim, Jea Kwon, Luiz Felipe Vecchietti et al.

Human moral judgment is context-dependent and modulated by interpersonal relationships. As large language models (LLMs) increasingly function as decision-support systems, determining whether they encode these social nuances is critical. We characterize machine behavior using the Whistleblower's Dilemma by varying two experimental dimensions: crime severity and relational closeness. Our study evaluates three distinct perspectives: (1) moral rightness (prescriptive norms), (2) predicted human behavior (descriptive social expectations), and (3) autonomous model decision-making. By analyzing the reasoning processes, we identify a clear cross-perspective divergence: while moral rightness remains consistently fairness-oriented, predicted human behavior shifts significantly toward loyalty as relational closeness increases. Crucially, model decisions align with moral rightness judgments rather than their own behavioral predictions. This inconsistency suggests that LLM decision-making prioritizes rigid, prescriptive rules over the social sensitivity present in their internal world-modeling, which poses a gap that may lead to significant misalignments in real-world deployments.

Wenchao Dong, Assem Zhunis, Hyojin Chin et al.

We explored cultural biases-individualism vs. collectivism-in ChatGPT across three Western languages (i.e., English, German, and French) and three Eastern languages (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, and Korean). When ChatGPT adopted an individualistic persona in Western languages, its collectivism scores (i.e., out-group values) exhibited a more negative trend, surpassing their positive orientation towards individualism (i.e., in-group values). Conversely, when a collectivistic persona was assigned to ChatGPT in Eastern languages, a similar pattern emerged with more negative responses toward individualism (i.e., out-group values) as compared to collectivism (i.e., in-group values). The results indicate that when imbued with a particular social identity, ChatGPT discerns in-group and out-group, embracing in-group values while eschewing out-group values. Notably, the negativity towards the out-group, from which prejudices and discrimination arise, exceeded the positivity towards the in-group. The experiment was replicated in the political domain, and the results remained consistent. Furthermore, this replication unveiled an intrinsic Democratic bias in Large Language Models (LLMs), aligning with earlier findings and providing integral insights into mitigating such bias through prompt engineering. Extensive robustness checks were performed using varying hyperparameter and persona setup methods, with or without social identity labels, across other popular language models.