Haewoon Kwak

Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An

Recent studies have alarmed that many online hate speeches are implicit. With its subtle nature, the explainability of the detection of such hateful speech has been a challenging problem. In this work, we examine whether ChatGPT can be used for providing natural language explanations (NLEs) for implicit hateful speech detection. We design our prompt to elicit concise ChatGPT-generated NLEs and conduct user studies to evaluate their qualities by comparison with human-written NLEs. We discuss the potential and limitations of ChatGPT in the context of implicit hateful speech research.

Rachith Aiyappa, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak et al.

ChatGPT, the first large language model (LLM) with mass adoption, has demonstrated remarkable performance in numerous natural language tasks. Despite its evident usefulness, evaluating ChatGPT's performance in diverse problem domains remains challenging due to the closed nature of the model and its continuous updates via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). We highlight the issue of data contamination in ChatGPT evaluations, with a case study of the task of stance detection. We discuss the challenge of preventing data contamination and ensuring fair model evaluation in the age of closed and continuously trained models.

Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An

Recent studies have exploited advanced generative language models to generate Natural Language Explanations (NLE) for why a certain text could be hateful. We propose the Chain of Explanation (CoE) Prompting method, using the heuristic words and target group, to generate high-quality NLE for implicit hate speech. We improved the BLUE score from 44.0 to 62.3 for NLE generation by providing accurate target information. We then evaluate the quality of generated NLE using various automatic metrics and human annotations of informativeness and clarity scores.

Hong Zhang, Haewoon Kwak, Wei Gao et al.

People who share similar opinions towards controversial topics could form an echo chamber and may share similar political views toward other topics as well. The existence of such connections, which we call connected behavior, gives researchers a unique opportunity to predict how one would behave for a future event given their past behaviors. In this work, we propose a framework to conduct connected behavior analysis. Neural stance detection models are trained on Twitter data collected on three seemingly independent topics, i.e., wearing a mask, racial equality, and Trump, to detect people's stance, which we consider as their online behavior in each topic-related event. Our results reveal a strong connection between the stances toward the three topical events and demonstrate the power of past behaviors in predicting one's future behavior.

Yun Yu Chong, Haewoon Kwak

While the contagious nature of online toxicity sparked increasing interest in its early detection and prevention, most of the literature focuses on the Western world. In this work, we demonstrate that 1) it is possible to detect toxicity triggers in an Asian online community, and 2) toxicity triggers can be strikingly different between Western and Eastern contexts.

Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An, Kunwoo Park

A conversation corpus is essential to build interactive AI applications. However, the demographic information of the participants in such corpora is largely underexplored mainly due to the lack of individual data in many corpora. In this work, we analyze a Korean nationwide daily conversation corpus constructed by the National Institute of Korean Language (NIKL) to characterize the participation of different demographic (age and sex) groups in the corpus.

Byunghwee Lee, Rachith Aiyappa, Yong-Yeol Ahn et al.

Beliefs form the foundation of human cognition and decision-making, guiding our actions and social connections. A model encapsulating beliefs and their interrelationships is crucial for understanding their influence on our actions. However, research on belief interplay has often been limited to beliefs related to specific issues and relied heavily on surveys. We propose a method to study the nuanced interplay between thousands of beliefs by leveraging an online user debate data and mapping beliefs onto a neural embedding space constructed using a fine-tuned large language model (LLM). This belief space captures the interconnectedness and polarization of diverse beliefs across social issues. Our findings show that positions within this belief space predict new beliefs of individuals and estimate cognitive dissonance based on the distance between existing and new beliefs. This study demonstrates how LLMs, combined with collective online records of human beliefs, can offer insights into the fundamental principles that govern human belief formation.

Byunghwee Lee, Sangyeon Kim, Filippo Menczer et al.

Due to the correlational structure in our traits such as identities, cultures, and political attitudes, seemingly innocuous preferences such as following a band or using a specific slang, can reveal private traits. This possibility, especially when combined with massive, public social data and advanced computational methods, poses a fundamental privacy risk. Given our increasing data exposure online and the rapid advancement of AI are increasing the misuse potential of such risk, it is therefore critical to understand capacity of large language models (LLMs) to exploit it. Here, using online discussions on Debate.org and Reddit, we show that LLMs can reliably infer hidden political alignment, significantly outperforming traditional machine learning models. Prediction accuracy further improves as we aggregate multiple text-level inferences into a user-level prediction, and as we use more politics-adjacent domains. We demonstrate that LLMs leverage the words that can be highly predictive of political alignment while not being explicitly political. Our findings underscore the capacity and risks of LLMs for exploiting socio-cultural correlates.

Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in various question-answering tasks. However, recent studies showcase that LLMs are susceptible to persuasion and could adopt counterfactual beliefs. We present a systematic evaluation of LLM susceptibility to persuasion under the Source--Message--Channel--Receiver (SMCR) communication framework. Across five mainstream Large Language Models (LLMs) and three domains (factual knowledge, medical QA, and social bias), we analyze how different persuasive strategies influence belief stability over multiple interaction turns. We further examine whether meta-cognition prompting (i.e., eliciting self-reported confidence) affects resistance to persuasion. Results show that smaller models exhibit extreme compliance, with over 80% of belief changes occurring at the first persuasive turn (average end turn of 1.1--1.4). Contrary to expectations, meta-cognition prompting increases vulnerability by accelerating belief erosion rather than enhancing robustness. Finally, we evaluate adversarial fine-tuning as a defense. While GPT-4o-mini achieves near-complete robustness (98.6%) and Mistral~7B improves substantially (35.7% $\rightarrow$ 79.3%), Llama models remain highly susceptible (<14%) even when fine-tuned on their own failure cases. Together, these findings highlight substantial model-dependent limits of current robustness interventions and offer guidance for developing more trustworthy LLMs.

Weihong Qi, Fan Huang, Rasika Muralidharan et al.

We present XChoice, an explainable framework for evaluating AI-human alignment in constrained decision making. Moving beyond outcome agreement such as accuracy and F1 score, XChoice fits a mechanism-based decision model to human data and LLM-generated decisions, recovering interpretable parameters that capture the relative importance of decision factors, constraint sensitivity, and implied trade-offs. Alignment is assessed by comparing these parameter vectors across models, options, and subgroups. We demonstrate XChoice on Americans' daily time allocation using the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) as human ground truth, revealing heterogeneous alignment across models and activities and salient misalignment concentrated in Black and married groups. We further validate robustness of XChoice via an invariance analysis and evaluate targeted mitigation with a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) intervention. Overall, XChoice provides mechanism-based metrics that diagnose misalignment and support informed improvements beyond surface outcome matching.

Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An

The robustness of AI-content detection models against sophisticated adversarial strategies, such as paraphrasing or word switching, is a rising concern in natural language generation (NLG) applications. This study proposes ToBlend, a novel token-level ensemble text generation method to challenge the robustness of current AI-content detection approaches by utilizing multiple sets of candidate generative large language models (LLMs). By randomly sampling token(s) from candidate LLMs sets, we find ToBlend significantly drops the performance of most mainstream AI-content detection methods. We evaluate the text quality produced under different ToBlend settings based on annotations from experienced human experts. We proposed a fine-tuned Llama3.1 model to distinguish the ToBlend generated text more accurately. Our findings underscore our proposed text generation approach's great potential in deceiving and improving detection models. Our datasets, codes, and annotations are open-sourced.

Rachith Aiyappa, Shruthi Senthilmani, Jisun An et al.

We investigate the performance of LLM-based zero-shot stance detection on tweets. Using FlanT5-XXL, an instruction-tuned open-source LLM, with the SemEval 2016 Tasks 6A, 6B, and P-Stance datasets, we study the performance and its variations under different prompts and decoding strategies, as well as the potential biases of the model. We show that the zero-shot approach can match or outperform state-of-the-art benchmarks, including fine-tuned models. We provide various insights into its performance including the sensitivity to instructions and prompts, the decoding strategies, the perplexity of the prompts, and to negations and oppositions present in prompts. Finally, we ensure that the LLM has not been trained on test datasets, and identify a positivity bias which may partially explain the performance differences across decoding strategie

Zoher Kachwala, Bao Tran Truong, Rasika Muralidharan et al.

Social media are shifting towards pluralism -- community-governed platforms where groups define their own norms. What violates rules in one community may be perfectly acceptable in another. Can AI models help moderate such pluralistic communities? We formalize the task as a multiple-choice problem, mirroring how human moderators operate in the real world: given a comment and its surrounding context, identify which specific rule, if any, is violated. We introduce PluRule, a multimodal, multilingual benchmark for detecting 13,371 rule violations across 1,989 Reddit communities spanning 2,885 rules in 9 languages. Using this benchmark, we show that state-of-the-art vision-language models struggle significantly: even GPT-5.2 with high reasoning performs only slightly better than a trivial baseline. We also find that bigger models and increased context provide marginal gains, and universal rules like civility and self-promotion are easier to detect. Our results show that moderation of pluralistic communities on social media is a fundamental challenge for language models. Our code and benchmark are publicly available.

Fan Huang, Songheng Zhang, Haewoon Kwak et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making contexts. While prior work has shown that LLMs exhibit cognitive biases behaviorally, whether these biases correspond to identifiable internal representations and can be mitigated through targeted intervention remains an open question. We define LLM cognitive bias as systematic, reproducible deviations from correct answers in tasks with computable ground-truth baselines, and introduce LLM CogBias, a benchmark organized around four families of cognitive biases: Judgment, Information Processing, Social, and Response. We evaluate three LLMs and find that cognitive biases emerge systematically across all four families, with magnitudes and debiasing responses that are strongly family-dependent: prompt-level debiasing substantially reduces Response biases but backfires for Judgment biases. Using linear probes under a contrastive design, we show that these biases are encoded as linearly separable directions in model activation space. Finally, we apply activation steering to modulate biased behavior, achieving 26--32\% reduction in bias score (fraction of biased responses) while preserving downstream capability on 25 benchmarks (Llama: negligible degradation; Qwen: up to $-$19.0pp for Judgment biases). Despite near-orthogonal bias representations across models (mean cosine similarity 0.01), steering reduces bias at similar rates across architectures ($r(246)$=.621, $p$<.001), suggesting shared functional organization.

Migyeong Kang, Jihyun Kim, Hyolim Jeon et al.

Psychiatric symptom identification on social media aims to infer fine-grained mental health symptoms from user-generated posts, allowing a detailed understanding of users' mental states. However, the construction of large-scale symptom-level datasets remains challenging due to the resource-intensive nature of expert labeling and the lack of standardized annotation guidelines, which in turn limits the generalizability of models to identify diverse symptom expressions from user-generated text. To address these issues, we propose SynSym, a synthetic data generation framework for constructing generalizable datasets for symptom identification. Leveraging large language models (LLMs), SynSym constructs high-quality training samples by (1) expanding each symptom into sub-concepts to enhance the diversity of generated expressions, (2) producing synthetic expressions that reflect psychiatric symptoms in diverse linguistic styles, and (3) composing realistic multi-symptom expressions, informed by clinical co-occurrence patterns. We validate SynSym on three benchmark datasets covering different styles of depressive symptom expression. Experimental results demonstrate that models trained solely on the synthetic data generated by SynSym perform comparably to those trained on real data, and benefit further from additional fine-tuning with real data. These findings underscore the potential of synthetic data as an alternative resource to real-world annotations in psychiatric symptom modeling, and SynSym serves as a practical framework for generating clinically relevant and realistic symptom expressions.

Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in morally sensitive decision-making, yet how they organize ethical frameworks across reasoning steps remains underexplored. We introduce \textit{moral reasoning trajectories}, sequences of ethical framework invocations across intermediate reasoning steps, and analyze their dynamics across six models and three benchmarks. We find that moral reasoning involves systematic multi-framework deliberation: 55.4--57.7\% of consecutive steps involve framework switches, and only 16.4--17.8\% of trajectories remain framework-consistent. Unstable trajectories remain 1.29$\times$ more susceptible to persuasive attacks ($p=0.015$). At the representation level, linear probes localize framework-specific encoding to model-specific layers (layer 63/81 for Llama-3.3-70B; layer 17/81 for Qwen2.5-72B), achieving 13.8--22.6\% lower KL divergence than the training-set prior baseline. Lightweight activation steering modulates framework integration patterns (6.7--8.9\% drift reduction) and amplifies the stability--accuracy relationship. We further propose a Moral Representation Consistency (MRC) metric that correlates strongly ($r=0.715$, $p<0.0001$) with LLM coherence ratings, whose underlying framework attributions are validated by human annotators (mean cosine similarity $= 0.859$).

Weihong Qi, Fan Huang, Jisun An et al.

This study evaluates the ability of DeepSeek, an open-source large language model (LLM), to simulate public opinions in comparison to LLMs developed by major tech companies. By comparing DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3 with Qwen2.5, GPT-4o, and Llama-3.3 and utilizing survey data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) and the Zuobiao dataset of China, we assess these models' capacity to predict public opinions on social issues in both China and the United States, highlighting their comparative capabilities between countries. Our findings indicate that DeepSeek-V3 performs best in simulating U.S. opinions on the abortion issue compared to other topics such as climate change, gun control, immigration, and services for same-sex couples, primarily because it more accurately simulates responses when provided with Democratic or liberal personas. For Chinese samples, DeepSeek-V3 performs best in simulating opinions on foreign aid and individualism but shows limitations in modeling views on capitalism, particularly failing to capture the stances of low-income and non-college-educated individuals. It does not exhibit significant differences from other models in simulating opinions on traditionalism and the free market. Further analysis reveals that all LLMs exhibit the tendency to overgeneralize a single perspective within demographic groups, often defaulting to consistent responses within groups. These findings highlight the need to mitigate cultural and demographic biases in LLM-driven public opinion modeling, calling for approaches such as more inclusive training methodologies.

Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, Kunwoo Park et al.

As AI becomes more integral in our lives, the need for transparency and responsibility grows. While natural language explanations (NLEs) are vital for clarifying the reasoning behind AI decisions, evaluating them through human judgments is complex and resource-intensive due to subjectivity and the need for fine-grained ratings. This study explores the alignment between ChatGPT and human assessments across multiple scales (i.e., binary, ternary, and 7-Likert scale). We sample 300 data instances from three NLE datasets and collect 900 human annotations for both informativeness and clarity scores as the text quality measurement. We further conduct paired comparison experiments under different ranges of subjectivity scores, where the baseline comes from 8,346 human annotations. Our results show that ChatGPT aligns better with humans in more coarse-grained scales. Also, paired comparisons and dynamic prompting (i.e., providing semantically similar examples in the prompt) improve the alignment. This research advances our understanding of large language models' capabilities to assess the text explanation quality in different configurations for responsible AI development.

Zoher Kachwala, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak et al.

Knowledge graphs play a pivotal role in various applications, such as question-answering and fact-checking. Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) represents text as knowledge graphs. Evaluating the quality of these graphs involves matching them structurally to each other and semantically to the source text. Existing AMR metrics are inefficient and struggle to capture semantic similarity. We also lack a systematic evaluation benchmark for assessing structural similarity between AMR graphs. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a novel AMR similarity metric, rematch, alongside a new evaluation for structural similarity called RARE. Among state-of-the-art metrics, rematch ranks second in structural similarity; and first in semantic similarity by 1--5 percentage points on the STS-B and SICK-R benchmarks. Rematch is also five times faster than the next most efficient metric.

Joseph Malone, Rachith Aiyappa, Byunghwee Lee et al.

Beliefs shape how people reason, communicate, and behave. Rather than existing in isolation, they exhibit a rich correlational structure--some connected through logical dependencies, others through indirect associations or social processes. As usage of large language models (LLMs) becomes more ubiquitous in our society, LLMs' ability to understand and reason through human beliefs has many implications from privacy issues to personalized persuasion and the potential for stereotyping. Yet how LLMs capture this interrelated landscape of beliefs remains unclear. For instance, when predicting someone's beliefs, what information affects the prediction most--who they are (demographics), what else they believe (prior stances), or a combination of both? We address these questions using data from an online debate platform, evaluating the ability of off-the-shelf open-weight LLMs to predict individuals' stance under four conditions: no context, demographics only, prior beliefs only, and both combined. We find that both types of information improve predictions over a blind baseline, with their combination yielding the best performance in most cases. However, the relative value of each varies substantially across belief domains. These findings reveal how current LLMs leverage different types of social information when reasoning about human beliefs, highlighting both their capabilities and limitations.

Rasika Muralidharan, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) with Large Language Model (LLM)-powered agents are gaining attention, yet fewer studies explore their team dynamics. Inspired by human team science, we propose a multi-agent framework to examine core aspects of team science: structure, diversity, and interaction dynamics. We evaluate team performance across four tasks: CommonsenseQA, StrategyQA, Social IQa, and Latent Implicit Hate, spanning commonsense and social reasoning. Our results show that flat teams tend to perform better than hierarchical ones, while diversity has a nuanced impact. Interviews suggest agents are overconfident about their team performance, yet post-task reflections reveal both appreciation for collaboration and challenges in integration, including limited conversational coordination.

Shintaro Sakai, Jisun An, Migyeong Kang et al.

Prior clinical psychology research shows that Western individuals with depression tend to report psychological symptoms, while Eastern individuals report somatic ones. We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs), which are increasingly used in mental health, reproduce these cultural patterns by prompting them with Western or Eastern personas. Results show that LLMs largely fail to replicate the patterns when prompted in English, though prompting in major Eastern languages (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, and Hindi) improves alignment in several configurations. Our analysis pinpoints two key reasons for this failure: the models' low sensitivity to cultural personas and a strong, culturally invariant symptom hierarchy that overrides cultural cues. These findings reveal that while prompt language is important, current general-purpose LLMs lack the robust, culture-aware capabilities essential for safe and effective mental health applications.

Preslav Nakov, Husrev Taha Sencar, Jisun An et al.

The present level of proliferation of fake, biased, and propagandistic content online has made it impossible to fact-check every single suspicious claim or article, either manually or automatically. Thus, many researchers are shifting their attention to higher granularity, aiming to profile entire news outlets, which makes it possible to detect likely "fake news" the moment it is published, by simply checking the reliability of its source. Source factuality is also an important element of systems for automatic fact-checking and "fake news" detection, as they need to assess the reliability of the evidence they retrieve online. Political bias detection, which in the Western political landscape is about predicting left-center-right bias, is an equally important topic, which has experienced a similar shift towards profiling entire news outlets. Moreover, there is a clear connection between the two, as highly biased media are less likely to be factual; yet, the two problems have been addressed separately. In this survey, we review the state of the art on media profiling for factuality and bias, arguing for the need to model them jointly. We further discuss interesting recent advances in using different information sources and modalities, which go beyond the text of the articles the target news outlet has published. Finally, we discuss current challenges and outline future research directions.

Kunwoo Park, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An et al.

To reach a broader audience and optimize traffic toward news articles, media outlets commonly run social media accounts and share their content with a short text summary. Despite its importance of writing a compelling message in sharing articles, the research community does not own a sufficient understanding of what kinds of editing strategies effectively promote audience engagement. In this study, we aim to fill the gap by analyzing media outlets' current practices using a data-driven approach. We first build a parallel corpus of original news articles and their corresponding tweets that eight media outlets shared. Then, we explore how those media edited tweets against original headlines and the effects of such changes. To estimate the effects of editing news headlines for social media sharing in audience engagement, we present a systematic analysis that incorporates a causal inference technique with deep learning; using propensity score matching, it allows for estimating potential (dis-)advantages of an editing style compared to counterfactual cases where a similar news article is shared with a different style. According to the analyses of various editing styles, we report common and differing effects of the styles across the outlets. To understand the effects of various editing styles, media outlets could apply our easy-to-use tool by themselves.

Ramy Baly, Georgi Karadzhov, Jisun An et al.

Predicting the political bias and the factuality of reporting of entire news outlets are critical elements of media profiling, which is an understudied but an increasingly important research direction. The present level of proliferation of fake, biased, and propagandistic content online, has made it impossible to fact-check every single suspicious claim, either manually or automatically. Alternatively, we can profile entire news outlets and look for those that are likely to publish fake or biased content. This approach makes it possible to detect likely "fake news" the moment they are published, by simply checking the reliability of their source. From a practical perspective, political bias and factuality of reporting have a linguistic aspect but also a social context. Here, we study the impact of both, namely (i) what was written (i.e., what was published by the target medium, and how it describes itself on Twitter) vs. (ii) who read it (i.e., analyzing the readers of the target medium on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube). We further study (iii) what was written about the target medium on Wikipedia. The evaluation results show that what was written matters most, and that putting all information sources together yields huge improvements over the current state-of-the-art.

Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An, Yong-Yeol Ahn

Framing is an indispensable narrative device for news media because even the same facts may lead to conflicting understandings if deliberate framing is employed. Therefore, identifying media framing is a crucial step to understanding how news media influence the public. Framing is, however, difficult to operationalize and detect, and thus traditional media framing studies had to rely on manual annotation, which is challenging to scale up to massive news datasets. Here, by developing a media frame classifier that achieves state-of-the-art performance, we systematically analyze the media frames of 1.5 million New York Times articles published from 2000 to 2017. By examining the ebb and flow of media frames over almost two decades, we show that short-term frame abundance fluctuation closely corresponds to major events, while there also exist several long-term trends, such as the gradually increasing prevalence of the ``Cultural identity'' frame. By examining specific topics and sentiments, we identify characteristics and dynamics of each frame. Finally, as a case study, we delve into the framing of mass shootings, revealing three major framing patterns. Our scalable, computational approach to massive news datasets opens up new pathways for systematic media framing studies.

Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An, Elise Jing et al.

Framing is a process of emphasizing a certain aspect of an issue over the others, nudging readers or listeners towards different positions on the issue even without making a biased argument. {Here, we propose FrameAxis, a method for characterizing documents by identifying the most relevant semantic axes ("microframes") that are overrepresented in the text using word embedding. Our unsupervised approach can be readily applied to large datasets because it does not require manual annotations. It can also provide nuanced insights by considering a rich set of semantic axes. FrameAxis is designed to quantitatively tease out two important dimensions of how microframes are used in the text. \textit{Microframe bias} captures how biased the text is on a certain microframe, and \textit{microframe intensity} shows how actively a certain microframe is used. Together, they offer a detailed characterization of the text. We demonstrate that microframes with the highest bias and intensity well align with sentiment, topic, and partisan spectrum by applying FrameAxis to multiple datasets from restaurant reviews to political news.} The existing domain knowledge can be incorporated into FrameAxis {by using custom microframes and by using FrameAxis as an iterative exploratory analysis instrument.} Additionally, we propose methods for explaining the results of FrameAxis at the level of individual words and documents. Our method may accelerate scalable and sophisticated computational analyses of framing across disciplines.

Yifan Zhang, Giovanni Da San Martino, Alberto Barrón-Cedeño et al.

We introduce Tanbih, a news aggregator with intelligent analysis tools to help readers understanding what's behind a news story. Our system displays news grouped into events and generates media profiles that show the general factuality of reporting, the degree of propagandistic content, hyper-partisanship, leading political ideology, general frame of reporting, and stance with respect to various claims and topics of a news outlet. In addition, we automatically analyse each article to detect whether it is propagandistic and to determine its stance with respect to a number of controversial topics.

Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak, Oliver Posegga et al.

Online platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, provide users with a rich set of features for sharing and consuming political information, expressing political opinions, and exchanging potentially contrary political views. In such activities, two types of communication spaces naturally emerge: those dominated by exchanges between politically homogeneous users and those that allow and encourage cross-cutting exchanges in politically heterogeneous groups. While research on political talk in online environments abounds, we know surprisingly little about the potentially varying nature of discussions in politically homogeneous spaces as compared to cross-cutting communication spaces. To fill this gap, we use Reddit to explore the nature of political discussions in homogeneous and cross-cutting communication spaces. In particular, we develop an analytical template to study interaction and linguistic patterns within and between politically homogeneous and heterogeneous communication spaces. Our analyses reveal different behavioral patterns in homogeneous and cross-cutting communications spaces. We discuss theoretical and practical implications in the context of research on political talk online.

Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak, Yong-Yeol Ahn

Because word semantics can substantially change across communities and contexts, capturing domain-specific word semantics is an important challenge. Here, we propose SEMAXIS, a simple yet powerful framework to characterize word semantics using many semantic axes in word- vector spaces beyond sentiment. We demonstrate that SEMAXIS can capture nuanced semantic representations in multiple online communities. We also show that, when the sentiment axis is examined, SEMAXIS outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches in building domain-specific sentiment lexicons.

Ah Reum Kang, Jeremy Blackburn, Haewoon Kwak et al.

In this work, we use player behavior during the closed beta test of the MMORPG ArcheAge as a proxy for an extreme situation: at the end of the closed beta test, all user data is deleted, and thus, the outcome (or penalty) of players' in-game behaviors in the last few days loses its meaning. We analyzed 270 million records of player behavior in the 4th closed beta test of ArcheAge. Our findings show that there are no apparent pandemic behavior changes, but some outliers were more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior (e.g., player killing). We also found that contrary to the reassuring adage that "Even if I knew the world would go to pieces tomorrow, I would still plant my apple tree," players abandoned character progression, showing a drastic decrease in quest completion, leveling, and ability changes at the end of the beta test.

Kunwoo Park, Meeyoung Cha, Haewoon Kwak et al.

Retaining players over an extended period of time is a long-standing challenge in game industry. Significant effort has been paid to understanding what motivates players enjoy games. While individuals may have varying reasons to play or abandon a game at different stages within the game, previous studies have looked at the retention problem from a snapshot view. This study, by analyzing in-game logs of 51,104 distinct individuals in an online multiplayer game, uniquely offers a multifaceted view of the retention problem over the players' virtual life phases. We find that key indicators of longevity change with the game level. Achievement features are important for players at the initial to the advanced phases, yet social features become the most predictive of longevity once players reach the highest level offered by the game. These findings have theoretical and practical implications for designing online games that are adaptive to meeting the players' needs.

Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An

In this work, we analyze more than two million news photos published in January 2016. We demonstrate i) which objects appear the most in news photos; ii) what the sentiments of news photos are; iii) whether the sentiment of news photos is aligned with the tone of the text; iv) how gender is treated; and v) how differently political candidates are portrayed. To our best knowledge, this is the first large-scale study of news photo contents using deep learning-based vision APIs.

Haewoon Kwak, Jeremy Blackburn, Seungyeop Han

In this work we explore cyberbullying and other toxic behavior in team competition online games. Using a dataset of over 10 million player reports on 1.46 million toxic players along with corresponding crowdsourced decisions, we test several hypotheses drawn from theories explaining toxic behavior. Besides providing large-scale, empirical based understanding of toxic behavior, our work can be used as a basis for building systems to detect, prevent, and counter-act toxic behavior.

Julio Reis, Fabrıcio Benevenuto, Pedro O. S. Vaz de Melo et al.

A growing number of people are changing the way they consume news, replacing the traditional physical newspapers and magazines by their virtual online versions or/and weblogs. The interactivity and immediacy present in online news are changing the way news are being produced and exposed by media corporations. News websites have to create effective strategies to catch people's attention and attract their clicks. In this paper we investigate possible strategies used by online news corporations in the design of their news headlines. We analyze the content of 69,907 headlines produced by four major global media corporations during a minimum of eight consecutive months in 2014. In order to discover strategies that could be used to attract clicks, we extracted features from the text of the news headlines related to the sentiment polarity of the headline. We discovered that the sentiment of the headline is strongly related to the popularity of the news and also with the dynamics of the posted comments on that particular news.