Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied across various domains of finance. Since their training data are largely derived from human-authored corpora, LLMs may inherit a range of human biases. Behavioral biases can lead to instability and uncertainty in decision-making, particularly when processing financial information. However, existing research on LLM bias has mainly focused on direct questioning or simplified, general-purpose settings, with limited consideration of the complex real-world financial environments and high-risk, context-sensitive, multilingual financial misinformation detection tasks (MFMD). In this work, we propose MFMDScen, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating behavioral biases of LLMs in MFMD across diverse economic scenarios. In collaboration with financial experts, we construct three types of complex financial scenarios: (i) role- and personality-based, (ii) role- and region-based, and (iii) role-based scenarios incorporating ethnicity and religious beliefs. We further develop a multilingual financial misinformation dataset covering English, Chinese, Greek, and Bengali. By integrating these scenarios with misinformation claims, MFMDScen enables a systematic evaluation of 22 mainstream LLMs. Our findings reveal that pronounced behavioral biases persist across both commercial and open-source models. This project is available at https://github.com/lzw108/FMD.

Measuring the quality of public deliberation requires evaluating not only civility or argument structure, but also the informational progress of a conversation. We introduce a framework for Conversational Information Gain (CIG) that evaluates each utterance in terms of how it advances collective understanding of the target topic. To operationalize CIG, we model an evolving semantic memory of the discussion: the system extracts atomic claims from utterances and incrementally consolidates them into a structured memory state. Using this memory, we score each utterance along three interpretable dimensions: Novelty, Relevance, and Implication Scope. We annotate 80 segments from two moderated deliberative settings (TV debates and community discussions) with these dimensions and show that memory-derived dynamics (e.g., the number of claim updates) correlate more strongly with human-perceived CIG than traditional heuristics such as utterance length or TF–IDF. We develop effective LLM-based CIG predictors paving the way for information-focused conversation quality analysis in dialogues and deliberative success.

English as a Second Language (ESL) speakers often struggle to engage in group discussions due to language barriers. While moderators can facilitate participation, few studies assess conversational engagement and evaluate moderation effectiveness. To address this gap, we develop a dataset comprising 17 sessions from an online ESL conversation club, which includes both moderated and non-moderated discussions. We then introduce an approach that integrates automatic ESL dialogue assessment and a framework that categorizes moderation strategies. Our findings indicate that moderators help improve the flow of topics and start/end a conversation. Interestingly, we find active acknowledgement and encouragement to be the most effective moderation strategy, while excessive information and opinion sharing by moderators has a negative impact. Ultimately, our study paves the way for analyzing ESL group discussions and the role of moderators in non-native conversation settings. Code and data are available at https://github.com/RenaGao/L2Moderator.

We propose WHoW, an evaluation framework for analyzing the facilitation strategies of moderators across different domains/scenarios by examining their motives (Why), dialogue acts (How) and target speaker (Who). Using this framework, we annotated 5,657 moderation sentences with human judges and 15,494 sentences with GPT-4o from two domains: TV debates and radio panel discussions. Comparative analysis demonstrates the framework’s cross-domain generalisability and reveals distinct moderation strategies: debate moderators emphasise coordination and facilitate interaction through questions and instructions, while panel discussion moderators prioritize information provision and actively participate in discussions. Our analytical framework works for different moderation scenarios, enhances our understanding of moderation behaviour through automatic large-scale analysis, and facilitates the development of moderator agents.

We present NewsBench, a novel evaluation framework to systematically assess the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for editorial capabilities in Chinese journalism. Our constructed benchmark dataset is focused on four facets of writing proficiency and six facets of safety adherence, and it comprises manually and carefully designed 1,267 test samples in the types of multiple choice questions and short answer questions for five editorial tasks in 24 news domains. To measure performances, we propose different GPT-4 based automatic evaluation protocols to assess LLM generations for short answer questions in terms of writing proficiency and safety adherence, and both are validated by the high correlations with human evaluations. Based on the systematic evaluation framework, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of eleven popular LLMs which can handle Chinese. The experimental results highlight GPT-4 and ERNIE Bot as top performers, yet reveal a relative deficiency in journalistic safety adherence in creative writing tasks. Our findings also underscore the need for enhanced ethical guidance in machine-generated journalistic content, marking a step forward in aligning LLMs with journalistic standards and safety considerations. The evaluation framework and experimental results are expected to provide an in-depth understanding of the editorial capabilities of LLMs and speed up the development of LLMs in journalism.

We explore the relationship between empathy and toxicity in the context of online mental health forums. Despite the common assumption of a negative correlation between these concepts, it has not been empirically examined. We augment the EPITOME mental health empathy dataset with toxicity labels using two widely employed toxic/harmful content detection APIs: Perspective API and OpenAI moderation API. We find a notable presence of toxic/harmful content (17.77%) within empathetic responses, and only a very weak negative correlation between the two variables. Qualitative analysis revealed contributions labeled as empathetic often contain harmful content such as promotion of suicidal ideas. Our results highlight the need for reevaluating empathy independently from toxicity in future research and encourage a reconsideration of empathy’s role in natural language generation and evaluation.