Zhivar Sourati

Zhivar Sourati, Vishnu Priya Prasanna Venkatesh, Darshan Deshpande et al.

The spread of misinformation, propaganda, and flawed argumentation has been amplified in the Internet era. Given the volume of data and the subtlety of identifying violations of argumentation norms, supporting information analytics tasks, like content moderation, with trustworthy methods that can identify logical fallacies is essential. In this paper, we formalize prior theoretical work on logical fallacies into a comprehensive three-stage evaluation framework of detection, coarse-grained, and fine-grained classification. We adapt existing evaluation datasets for each stage of the evaluation. We employ three families of robust and explainable methods based on prototype reasoning, instance-based reasoning, and knowledge injection. The methods combine language models with background knowledge and explainable mechanisms. Moreover, we address data sparsity with strategies for data augmentation and curriculum learning. Our three-stage framework natively consolidates prior datasets and methods from existing tasks, like propaganda detection, serving as an overarching evaluation testbed. We extensively evaluate these methods on our datasets, focusing on their robustness and explainability. Our results provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the methods on different components and fallacy classes, indicating that fallacy identification is a challenging task that may require specialized forms of reasoning to capture various classes. We share our open-source code and data on GitHub to support further work on logical fallacy identification.

Yifan Jiang, Filip Ilievski, Kaixin Ma et al.

The success of language models has inspired the NLP community to attend to tasks that require implicit and complex reasoning, relying on human-like commonsense mechanisms. While such vertical thinking tasks have been relatively popular, lateral thinking puzzles have received little attention. To bridge this gap, we devise BRAINTEASER: a multiple-choice Question Answering task designed to test the model's ability to exhibit lateral thinking and defy default commonsense associations. We design a three-step procedure for creating the first lateral thinking benchmark, consisting of data collection, distractor generation, and generation of adversarial examples, leading to 1,100 puzzles with high-quality annotations. To assess the consistency of lateral reasoning by models, we enrich BRAINTEASER based on a semantic and contextual reconstruction of its questions. Our experiments with state-of-the-art instruction- and commonsense language models reveal a significant gap between human and model performance, which is further widened when consistency across adversarial formats is considered. We make all of our code and data available to stimulate work on developing and evaluating lateral thinking models.

Zhivar Sourati, Filip Ilievski, Hông-Ân Sandlin et al.

The ease and speed of spreading misinformation and propaganda on the Web motivate the need to develop trustworthy technology for detecting fallacies in natural language arguments. However, state-of-the-art language modeling methods exhibit a lack of robustness on tasks like logical fallacy classification that require complex reasoning. In this paper, we propose a Case-Based Reasoning method that classifies new cases of logical fallacy by language-modeling-driven retrieval and adaptation of historical cases. We design four complementary strategies to enrich input representation for our model, based on external information about goals, explanations, counterarguments, and argument structure. Our experiments in in-domain and out-of-domain settings indicate that Case-Based Reasoning improves the accuracy and generalizability of language models. Our ablation studies suggest that representations of similar cases have a strong impact on the model performance, that models perform well with fewer retrieved cases, and that the size of the case database has a negligible effect on the performance. Finally, we dive deeper into the relationship between the properties of the retrieved cases and the model performance.

Zhivar Sourati, Darshan Deshpande, Filip Ilievski et al.

Downstream applications often require text classification models to be accurate and robust. While the accuracy of the state-of-the-art Language Models (LMs) approximates human performance, they often exhibit a drop in performance on noisy data found in the real world. This lack of robustness can be concerning, as even small perturbations in the text, irrelevant to the target task, can cause classifiers to incorrectly change their predictions. A potential solution can be the family of Prototype-Based Networks (PBNs) that classifies examples based on their similarity to prototypical examples of a class (prototypes) and has been shown to be robust to noise for computer vision tasks. In this paper, we study whether the robustness properties of PBNs transfer to text classification tasks under both targeted and static adversarial attack settings. Our results show that PBNs, as a mere architectural variation of vanilla LMs, offer more robustness compared to vanilla LMs under both targeted and static settings. We showcase how PBNs' interpretability can help us to understand PBNs' robustness properties. Finally, our ablation studies reveal the sensitivity of PBNs' robustness to how strictly clustering is done in the training phase, as tighter clustering results in less robust PBNs.

Abhinav Kumar Thakur, Filip Ilievski, Hông-Ân Sandlin et al.

In the current context where online platforms have been effectively weaponized in a variety of geo-political events and social issues, Internet memes make fair content moderation at scale even more difficult. Existing work on meme classification and tracking has focused on black-box methods that do not explicitly consider the semantics of the memes or the context of their creation. In this paper, we pursue a modular and explainable architecture for Internet meme understanding. We design and implement multimodal classification methods that perform example- and prototype-based reasoning over training cases, while leveraging both textual and visual SOTA models to represent the individual cases. We study the relevance of our modular and explainable models in detecting harmful memes on two existing tasks: Hate Speech Detection and Misogyny Classification. We compare the performance between example- and prototype-based methods, and between text, vision, and multimodal models, across different categories of harmfulness (e.g., stereotype and objectification). We devise a user-friendly interface that facilitates the comparative analysis of examples retrieved by all of our models for any given meme, informing the community about the strengths and limitations of these explainable methods.

Zhivar Sourati, Filip Ilievski, Pia Sommerauer et al.

As a core cognitive skill that enables the transferability of information across domains, analogical reasoning has been extensively studied for both humans and computational models. However, while cognitive theories of analogy often focus on narratives and study the distinction between surface, relational, and system similarities, existing work in natural language processing has a narrower focus as far as relational analogies between word pairs. This gap brings a natural question: can state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) detect system analogies between narratives? To gain insight into this question and extend word-based relational analogies to relational system analogies, we devise a comprehensive computational framework that operationalizes dominant theories of analogy, using narrative elements to create surface and system mappings. Leveraging the interplay between these mappings, we create a binary task and benchmark for Analogical Reasoning on Narratives (ARN), covering four categories of far (cross-domain)/near (within-domain) analogies and disanalogies. We show that while all LLMs can largely recognize near analogies, even the largest ones struggle with far analogies in a zero-shot setting, with GPT4.0 scoring below random. Guiding the models through solved examples and chain-of-thought reasoning enhances their analogical reasoning ability. Yet, since even in the few-shot setting, the best model only performs halfway between random and humans, ARN opens exciting directions for computational analogical reasoners.

Kian Ahrabian, Zhivar Sourati, Kexuan Sun et al.

While large language models (LLMs) are still being adopted to new domains and utilized in novel applications, we are experiencing an influx of the new generation of foundation models, namely multi-modal large language models (MLLMs). These models integrate verbal and visual information, opening new possibilities to demonstrate more complex reasoning abilities at the intersection of the two modalities. However, despite the revolutionizing prospect of MLLMs, our understanding of their reasoning abilities is limited. In this study, we assess the nonverbal abstract reasoning abilities of open-source and closed-source MLLMs using variations of Raven's Progressive Matrices. Our experiments reveal the challenging nature of such problems for MLLMs while showcasing the immense gap between open-source and closed-source models. We also uncover critical shortcomings of visual and textual perceptions, subjecting the models to low-performance ceilings. Finally, to improve MLLMs' performance, we experiment with different methods, such as Chain-of-Thought prompting, leading to a significant (up to 100%) boost in performance. Our code and datasets are available at https://github.com/usc-isi-i2/isi-mmlm-rpm.

Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Suhaib Abdurahman, Zhivar Sourati et al.

Socio-cognitive benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) often fail to predict real-world behavior, even when models achieve high benchmark scores. Prior work has attributed this evaluation-deployment gap to problems of measurement and validity. While these critiques are insightful, we argue that they overlook a more fundamental issue: many socio-cognitive evaluations proceed without an explicit theoretical specification of the target capability, leaving the assumptions linking task performance to competence implicit. Without this theoretical grounding, benchmarks that exercise only narrow subsets of a capability are routinely misinterpreted as evidence of broad competence: a gap that creates a systemic validity illusion by masking the failure to evaluate the capability's other essential dimensions. To address this gap, we make two contributions. First, we diagnose and formalize this theory gap as a foundational failure that undermines measurement and enables systematic overgeneralization of benchmark results. Second, we introduce the Theory Trace Card (TTC), a lightweight documentation artifact designed to accompany socio-cognitive evaluations, which explicitly outlines the theoretical basis of an evaluation, the components of the target capability it exercises, its operationalization, and its limitations. We argue that TTCs enhance the interpretability and reuse of socio-cognitive evaluations by making explicit the full validity chain, which links theory, task operationalization, scoring, and limitations, without modifying benchmarks or requiring agreement on a single theory.

Elnaz Rahmati, Nona Ghazizadeh, Zhivar Sourati et al.

The real world is non-stationary and infinitely complex, requiring intelligent agents to learn continually without the prohibitive cost of retraining from scratch. While online continual learning offers a framework for this setting, learning new information often interferes with previously acquired knowledge, causes forgetting and degraded generalization. To address this, we propose Abstraction-Augmented Training (AAT), a loss-level modification encouraging models to capture the latent relational structure shared across examples. By jointly optimizing over concrete instances and their abstract representations, AAT introduces a memory-efficient inductive bias that stabilizes learning in strictly online data streams, eliminating the need for a replay buffer. To capture the multi-faceted nature of abstraction, we introduce and evaluate AAT on two benchmarks: a controlled relational dataset where abstraction is realized through entity masking, and a narrative dataset where abstraction is expressed through shared proverbs. Our results show that AAT achieves performance comparable to or exceeding strong experience replay (ER) baselines, despite requiring zero additional memory and only minimal changes to the training objective. This work highlights structural abstraction as a powerful, memory-free alternative to ER.

Yifan Jiang, Jiarui Zhang, Kexuan Sun et al.

While multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have shown significant progress on many popular visual reasoning benchmarks, whether they possess abstract visual reasoning abilities remains an open question. Similar to the Sudoku puzzles, abstract visual reasoning (AVR) problems require finding high-level patterns (e.g., repetition constraints) that control the input shapes (e.g., digits) in a specific task configuration (e.g., matrix). However, existing AVR benchmarks only considered a limited set of patterns (addition, conjunction), input shapes (rectangle, square), and task configurations (3 by 3 matrices). To evaluate MLLMs' reasoning abilities comprehensively, we introduce MARVEL, a multidimensional AVR benchmark with 770 puzzles composed of six core knowledge patterns, geometric and abstract shapes, and five different task configurations. To inspect whether the model accuracy is grounded in perception and reasoning, MARVEL complements the general AVR question with perception questions in a hierarchical evaluation framework. We conduct comprehensive experiments on MARVEL with nine representative MLLMs in zero-shot and few-shot settings. Our experiments reveal that all models show near-random performance on the AVR question, with significant performance gaps (40%) compared to humans across all patterns and task configurations. Further analysis of perception questions reveals that MLLMs struggle to comprehend the visual features (near-random performance) and even count the panels in the puzzle ( <45%), hindering their ability for abstract reasoning. We release our entire code and dataset.

Alireza S. Ziabari, Nona Ghazizadeh, Zhivar Sourati et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive reasoning abilities, yet their reliance on structured step-by-step processing reveals a critical limitation. In contrast, human cognition fluidly adapts between intuitive, heuristic (System 1) and analytical, deliberative (System 2) reasoning depending on the context. This difference between human cognitive flexibility and LLMs' reliance on a single reasoning style raises a critical question: while human fast heuristic reasoning evolved for its efficiency and adaptability, is a uniform reasoning approach truly optimal for LLMs, or does its inflexibility make them brittle and unreliable when faced with tasks demanding more agile, intuitive responses? To answer these questions, we explicitly align LLMs to these reasoning styles by curating a dataset with valid System 1 and System 2 answers, and evaluate their performance across reasoning benchmarks. Our results reveal an accuracy-efficiency trade-off: System 2-aligned models excel in arithmetic and symbolic reasoning, while System 1-aligned models perform better in commonsense reasoning tasks. To analyze the reasoning spectrum, we interpolated between the two extremes by varying the proportion of alignment data, which resulted in a monotonic change in accuracy. A mechanistic analysis of model responses shows that System 1 models employ more definitive outputs, whereas System 2 models demonstrate greater uncertainty. Building on these findings, we further combine System 1- and System 2-aligned models based on the entropy of their generations, without additional training, and obtain a dynamic model that outperforms across nearly all benchmarks. This work challenges the assumption that step-by-step reasoning is always optimal and highlights the need for adapting reasoning strategies based on task demands.

Zhivar Sourati, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Meltem Ozcan et al.

Language is far more than a communication tool. A wealth of information - including but not limited to the identities, psychological states, and social contexts of its users - can be gleaned through linguistic markers, and such insights are routinely leveraged across diverse fields ranging from product development and marketing to healthcare. In four studies utilizing experimental and observational methods, we demonstrate that the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) as writing assistants is linked to notable declines in linguistic diversity and may interfere with the societal and psychological insights language provides. We show that while the core content of texts is retained when LLMs polish and rewrite texts, not only do they homogenize writing styles, but they also alter stylistic elements in a way that selectively amplifies certain dominant characteristics or biases while suppressing others - emphasizing conformity over individuality. By varying LLMs, prompts, classifiers, and contexts, we show that these trends are robust and consistent. Our findings highlight a wide array of risks associated with linguistic homogenization, including compromised diagnostic processes and personalization efforts, the exacerbation of existing divides and barriers to equity in settings like personnel selection where language plays a critical role in assessing candidates' qualifications, communication skills, and cultural fit, and the undermining of efforts for cultural preservation.

Zhivar Sourati, Meltem Ozcan, Colin McDaniel et al.

Prior research has established associations between individuals' language usage and their personal traits; our linguistic patterns reveal information about our personalities, emotional states, and beliefs. However, with the increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as writing assistants in everyday writing, a critical question emerges: are authors' linguistic patterns still predictive of their personal traits when LLMs are involved in the writing process? We investigate the impact of LLMs on the linguistic markers of demographic and psychological traits, specifically examining three LLMs - GPT3.5, Llama 2, and Gemini - across six different traits: gender, age, political affiliation, personality, empathy, and morality. Our findings indicate that although the use of LLMs slightly reduces the predictive power of linguistic patterns over authors' personal traits, the significant changes are infrequent, and the use of LLMs does not fully diminish the predictive power of authors' linguistic patterns over their personal traits. We also note that some theoretically established lexical-based linguistic markers lose their reliability as predictors when LLMs are used in the writing process. Our findings have important implications for the study of linguistic markers of personal traits in the age of LLMs.

Zhivar Sourati, Alireza S. Ziabari, Morteza Dehghani

Cognitive diversity, reflected in variations of language, perspective, and reasoning, is essential to creativity and collective intelligence. This diversity is rich and grounded in culture, history, and individual experience. Yet as large language models (LLMs) become deeply embedded in people's lives, they risk standardizing language and reasoning. This Review synthesizes evidence across linguistics, cognitive, and computer science to show how LLMs reflect and reinforce dominant styles while marginalizing alternative voices and reasoning strategies. We examine how their design and widespread use contribute to this effect by mirroring patterns in their training data and amplifying convergence as all people increasingly rely on the same models across contexts. Unchecked, this homogenization risks flattening the cognitive landscapes that drive collective intelligence and adaptability.

Preni Golazizian, Elnaz Rahmati, Jackson Trager et al.

Traffic stops are among the most frequent police-civilian interactions, and body-worn cameras (BWCs) provide a unique record of how these encounters unfold. Respect is a central dimension of these interactions, shaping public trust and perceived legitimacy, yet its interpretation is inherently subjective and shaped by lived experience, rendering community-specific perspectives a critical consideration. Leveraging unprecedented access to Los Angeles Police Department BWC footage, we introduce the first large-scale traffic-stop dataset annotated with respect ratings and free-text rationales from multiple perspectives. By sampling annotators from police-affiliated, justice-system-impacted, and non-affiliated Los Angeles residents, we enable the systematic study of perceptual differences across diverse communities. To this end, we (i) develop a domain-specific evaluation rubric grounded in procedural justice theory, LAPD training materials, and extensive fieldwork; (ii) introduce a rubric-driven preference data construction framework for perspective-consistent alignment; and (iii) propose a perspective-aware modeling framework that predicts personalized respect ratings and generates annotator-specific rationales for both officers and civilian drivers from traffic-stop transcripts. Across all three annotator groups, our approach improves both rating prediction performance and rationale alignment. Our perspective-aware framework enables law enforcement to better understand diverse community expectations, providing a vital tool for building public trust and procedural legitimacy.

Zhivar Sourati, Zheng Wang, Marianne Menglin Liu et al.

Question answering over visually rich documents (VRDs) requires reasoning not only over isolated content but also over documents' structural organization and cross-page dependencies. However, conventional retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods encode content in isolated chunks during ingestion, losing structural and cross-page dependencies, and retrieve a fixed number of pages at inference, regardless of the specific demands of the question or context. This often results in incomplete evidence retrieval and degraded answer quality for multi-page reasoning tasks. To address these limitations, we propose LAD-RAG, a novel Layout-Aware Dynamic RAG framework. During ingestion, LAD-RAG constructs a symbolic document graph that captures layout structure and cross-page dependencies, adding it alongside standard neural embeddings to yield a more holistic representation of the document. During inference, an LLM agent dynamically interacts with the neural and symbolic indices to adaptively retrieve the necessary evidence based on the query. Experiments on MMLongBench-Doc, LongDocURL, DUDE, and MP-DocVQA demonstrate that LAD-RAG improves retrieval, achieving over 90% perfect recall on average without any top-k tuning, and outperforming baseline retrievers by up to 20% in recall at comparable noise levels, yielding higher QA accuracy with minimal latency.

Darshan Deshpande, Zhivar Sourati, Filip Ilievski et al.

Automatic assessment of the quality of arguments has been recognized as a challenging task with significant implications for misinformation and targeted speech. While real-world arguments are tightly anchored in context, existing computational methods analyze their quality in isolation, which affects their accuracy and generalizability. We propose SPARK: a novel method for scoring argument quality based on contextualization via relevant knowledge. We devise four augmentations that leverage large language models to provide feedback, infer hidden assumptions, supply a similar-quality argument, or give a counter-argument. SPARK uses a dual-encoder Transformer architecture to enable the original argument and its augmentation to be considered jointly. Our experiments in both in-domain and zero-shot setups show that SPARK consistently outperforms existing techniques across multiple metrics.