Neologisms and emerging slang are central to daily conversation, yet challenging for non-native speakers (NNS) to interpret and use appropriately in cross-cultural communication with native speakers (NS). NNS increasingly make use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to learn these words. We study the utility of such tools in mediating an informal communication scenario through a human-subjects study (N=234): NNS participants learn English neologisms with AI support, write messages using the learned word to an NS friend, and judge contextual appropriateness of the neologism in two provided writing samples. Using both NS evaluator-rated communicative competence of NNS-produced writing and NNS’ contextual appropriateness judgments, we compare three AI-based support conditions: AI Definition, AI Rewrite into simpler English, AI Explanation of meaning and usage, and Non-AI Dictionary for comparison. We show that AI Explanation yields the largest gains over no support in NS-rated competence, while contextual appropriateness judgments show indifference across support. NNS participants’ self-reported perceptions tend to overestimate NS ratings, revealing a mismatch between perceived and actual competence. We further observe a significant gap between NNS- and NS-produced writing, highlighting the limitations of current AI tools and informing design for future tools.

AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trustAI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires that we understand when,why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two reliance decisions: delegating a task toAI without seeing its output (whether AI is used) and evaluating AI suggestions to decidewhether to adopt them how AI output shapes final decisions).Both matter for effective collaboration, yet prior work lacks naturalistic experiments capturing both patternsfor the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human–AI teams competing in aquestion-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win.Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions.While human–AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humansalone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, bothunder-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.7% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.5%).Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (60.7%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans’ initial incorrect answer.

Studies of human psychology have demonstrated that people are more motivated to extend empathy to in-group members than out-group members (Cikara et al., 2011). In this study, we investigate how this aspect of intergroup relations in humans is replicated by LLMs in an emotion intensity prediction task. In this task, the LLM is given a short description of an experience a person had that caused them to feel a particular emotion; the LLM is then prompted to predict the intensity of the emotion the person experienced on a numerical scale. By manipulating the group identities assigned to the LLM’s persona (the “perceiver”) and the person in the narrative (the “experiencer”), we measure how predicted emotion intensities differ between in-group and out-group settings. We observe that LLMs assign higher emotion intensity scores to in-group members than out-group members. This pattern holds across all three types of social groupings we tested: race/ethnicity, nationality, and religion. We perform an in-depth analysis on Llama-3.1-8B, the model which exhibited strongest intergroup bias among those tested.

Language models are often miscalibrated, leading to confidently incorrect answers. We introduce GRACE, a benchmark for language model calibration that incorporates comparison with human calibration. GRACE consists of question-answer pairs, in which each question contains a series of clues that gradually become easier, all leading to the same answer; models must answer correctly as early as possible as the clues are revealed. This setting permits granular measurement of model calibration based on how early, accurately, and confidently a model answers. After collecting these questions, we host live human vs. model competitions to gather 1,749 data points on human and model teams’ timing, accuracy, and confidence. We propose a metric, CalScore, that uses GRACE to analyze model calibration errors and identify types of model miscalibration that differ from human behavior. We find that although humans are less accurate than models, humans are generally better calibrated. Since state-of-the-art models struggle on GRACE, it effectively evaluates progress on improving model calibration.

Multimodal counterfactual reasoning is a vital yet challenging ability for AI systems. It involves predicting the outcomes of hypothetical circumstances based on vision and language inputs, which enables AI models to learn from failures and explore hypothetical scenarios. Despite its importance, there are only a few datasets targeting the counterfactual reasoning abilities of multimodal models. Among them, they only cover reasoning over synthetic environments or specific types of events (e.g. traffic collisions), making them hard to reliably benchmark the model generalization ability in diverse real-world scenarios and reasoning dimensions. To overcome these limitations, we develop a video question answering dataset, ACQUIRED: it consists of 3.9K annotated videos, encompassing a wide range of event types and incorporating both first and third-person viewpoints, which ensures a focus on real-world diversity. In addition, each video is annotated with questions that span three distinct dimensions of reasoning, including physical, social, and temporal, which can comprehensively evaluate the model counterfactual abilities along multiple aspects. We benchmark our dataset against several state-of-the-art language-only and multimodal models and experimental results demonstrate a significant performance gap (>13%) between models and humans. The findings suggest that multimodal counterfactual reasoning remains an open challenge and ACQUIRED is a comprehensive and reliable benchmark for inspiring future research in this direction.

Recent studies show that Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies propagate societal biases about demographic groups associated with attributes such as gender, race, and nationality. To create interventions and mitigate these biases and associated harms, it is vital to be able to detect and measure such biases. While existing works propose bias evaluation and mitigation methods for various tasks, there remains a need to cohesively understand the biases and the specific harms they measure, and how different measures compare with each other. To address this gap, this work presents a practical framework of harms and a series of questions that practitioners can answer to guide the development of bias measures. As a validation of our framework and documentation questions, we also present several case studies of how existing bias measures in NLP—both intrinsic measures of bias in representations and extrinsic measures of bias of downstream applications—can be aligned with different harms and how our proposed documentation questions facilitates more holistic understanding of what bias measures are measuring.