Communicating across cultures is inherently challenging, especially through culturally dense and ambiguous formats like memes. While people expect large language models (LLMs) hold promise for bridging such gaps, existing benchmark datasets often fail to capture the cultural context necessary for accurate interpretation. To address this, we introduce MemeBridge, a curated dataset centered on U.S.-originated memes, designed to capture two complementary perspectives: (1) how Chinese participants interpret these memes, and (2) how U.S. participants anticipate how people from other cultures might misunderstand them. Here, context refers to implicit cultural knowledge—background beliefs, norms, and shared assumptions that shape meme comprehension. The dataset was constructed via a multi-stage crowdsourcing pipeline with rigorous validation, including human agreement checks and GPT-based classification verification. Each meme is annotated with sentiment, emotion, cultural significance, and knowledge type, providing rich supervision for downstream tasks. Notably, we observe that the anticipated misunderstandings from U.S. participants are often inaccurate, highlighting the asymmetries in cultural understanding and the challenges of adopting perspectives beyond one's own. This bidirectional framing -- focusing on both expression and perception -- enables more nuanced benchmarking of cross-cultural comprehension. Our probing of multiple LLMs reveals that while models developed in different cultural contexts exhibit partial cross-cultural understanding, they often struggle with sophisticated interpretations. By contrast, fine-tuning with MemeBridge improves model performance, underscoring the value of culturally grounded resources for training and evaluating LLMs in globally diverse settings.

Xiaoni Duan, Zhuoyan Li, Chien-Ju Ho, Ming Yin. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.

With the rapid development of AI-based decision aids, different forms of AI assistance have been increasingly integrated into the human decision making processes. To best support humans in decision making, it is essential to quantitatively understand how diverse forms of AI assistance influence humans' decision making behavior. To this end, much of the current research focuses on the end-to-end prediction of human behavior using ``black-box'' models, often lacking interpretations of the nuanced ways in which AI assistance impacts the human decision making process. Meanwhile, methods that prioritize the interpretability of human behavior predictions are often tailored for one specific form of AI assistance, making adaptations to other forms of assistance difficult. In this paper, we propose a computational framework that can provide an interpretable characterization of the influence of different forms of AI assistance on decision makers in AI-assisted decision making. By conceptualizing AI assistance as the ``nudge'' in human decision making processes, our approach centers around modelling how different forms of AI assistance modify humans' strategy in weighing different information in making their decisions. Evaluations on behavior data collected from real human decision makers show that the proposed framework outperforms various baselines in accurately predicting human behavior in AI-assisted decision making. Based on the proposed framework, we further provide insights into how individuals with different cognitive styles are nudged by AI assistance differently.

Recent advances in generative AI technologies like large language models raise both excitement and concerns about the future of human-AI co-creation in writing. To unpack people’s attitude towards and experience with generative AI-powered writing assistants, in this paper, we conduct an experiment to understand whether and how much value people attach to AI assistance, and how the incorporation of AI assistance in writing workflows changes people’s writing perceptions and performance. Our results suggest that people are willing to forgo financial payments to receive writing assistance from AI, especially if AI can provide direct content generation assistance and the writing task is highly creative. Generative AI-powered assistance is found to offer benefits in increasing people’s productivity and confidence in writing. However, direct content generation assistance offered by AI also comes with risks, including decreasing people’s sense of accountability and diversity in writing. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings.

Recent advances in generative AI technologies like large language models have boosted the incorporation of AI assistance in writing workflows, leading to the rise of a new paradigm of human-AI co-creation in writing.To understand how people perceive writings that are produced under this paradigm, in this paper, we conduct an experimental study to understand whether and how the disclosure of the level and type of AI assistance in the writing process would affect people's perceptions of the writing on various aspects, including their evaluation on the quality of the writing and their ranking of different writings.Our results suggest that disclosing the AI assistance in the writing process, especially if AI has provided assistance in generating new content, decreases the average quality ratings for both argumentative essays and creative stories.This decrease in the average quality ratings often comes with an increased level of variations in different individuals' quality evaluations of the same writing.Indeed, factors such as an individual's writing confidence and familiarity with AI writing assistants are shown to moderate the impact of AI assistance disclosure on their writing quality evaluations.We also find that disclosing the use of AI assistance may significantly reduce the proportion of writings produced with AI's content generation assistance among the top-ranked writings. Independent AI editing AI generation

Group decision making plays a crucial role in our complex and interconnected world. The rise of AI technologies has the potential to provide data-driven insights to facilitate group decision making, although it is found that groups do not always utilize AI assistance appropriately. In this paper, we aim to examine whether and how the introduction of a devil’s advocate in the AI-assisted group decision making processes could help groups better utilize AI assistance and change the perceptions of group processes during decision making. Inspired by the exceptional conversational capabilities exhibited by modern large language models (LLMs), we design four different styles of devil’s advocate powered by LLMs, varying their interactivity (i.e., interactive vs. non-interactive) and their target of objection (i.e., challenge the AI recommendation or the majority opinion within the group). Through a randomized human-subject experiment, we find evidence suggesting that LLM-powered devil’s advocates that argue against the AI model’s decision recommendation have the potential to promote groups’ appropriate reliance on AI. Meanwhile, the introduction of LLM-powered devil’s advocate usually does not lead to substantial increases in people’s perceived workload for completing the group decision making tasks, while interactive LLM-powered devil’s advocates are perceived as more collaborating and of higher quality. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of our findings.

Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the ``black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them.

MOTIVATION: Spatial omics data demand computational analysis but many analysis tools have computational resource requirements that increase with the number of cells analyzed. This presents scalability challenges as researchers use spatial omics technologies to profile millions of cells. RESULTS: To enhance the scalability of spatial omics data analysis, we developed a rasterization preprocessing framework called SEraster that aggregates cellular information into spatial pixels. We apply SEraster to both real and simulated spatial omics data prior to spatial variable gene expression analysis to demonstrate that such preprocessing can reduce computational resource requirements while maintaining high performance, including as compared to other down-sampling approaches. We further integrate SEraster with existing analysis tools to characterize cell-type spatial co-enrichment across length scales. Finally, we apply SEraster to enable analysis of a mouse pup spatial omics dataset with over a million cells to identify tissue-level and cell-type-specific spatially variable genes as well as spatially co-enriched cell types that recapitulate expected organ structures. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: SEraster is implemented as an R package on GitHub (https://github.com/JEFworks-Lab/SEraster) with additional tutorials at https://JEF.works/SEraster.

The increased integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in human workflows has resulted in a new paradigm of AI-assisted decision making, in which an AI model provides decision recommendations while humans make the final decisions. To best support humans in decision making, it is critical to obtain a quantitative understanding of how humans interact with and rely on AI. Previous studies often model humans' reliance on AI as an analytical process, i.e., reliance decisions are made based on cost-benefit analysis. However, theoretical models in psychology suggest that the reliance decisions can often be driven by emotions like humans' trust in AI models. In this paper, we propose a hidden Markov model to capture the affective process underlying the human-AI interaction in AI-assisted decision making, by characterizing how decision makers adjust their trust in AI over time and make reliance decisions based on their trust. Evaluations on real human behavior data collected from human-subject experiments show that the proposed model outperforms various baselines in accurately predicting humans' reliance behavior in AI-assisted decision making. Based on the proposed model, we further provide insights into how humans' trust and reliance dynamics in AI-assisted decision making is influenced by contextual factors like decision stakes and their interaction experiences.

With the prevalence of AI assistance in decision making, a more relevant question to ask than the classical question of “are two heads better than one?’’ is how groups’ behavior and performance in AI-assisted decision making compare with those of individuals’. In this paper, we conduct a case study to compare groups and individuals in human-AI collaborative recidivism risk assessment along six aspects, including decision accuracy and confidence, appropriateness of reliance on AI, understanding of AI, decision-making fairness, and willingness to take accountability. Our results highlight that compared to individuals, groups rely on AI models more regardless of their correctness, but they are more confident when they overturn incorrect AI recommendations. We also find that groups make fairer decisions than individuals according to the accuracy equality criterion, and groups are willing to give AI more credit when they make correct decisions. We conclude by discussing the implications of our work.

The collection and curation of high-quality training data is crucial for developing text classification models with superior performance, but it is often associated with significant costs and time investment.Researchers have recently explored using large language models (LLMs) to generate synthetic datasets as an alternative approach.However, the effectiveness of the LLM-generated synthetic data in supporting model training is inconsistent across different classification tasks.To better understand factors that moderate the effectiveness of the LLMgenerated synthetic data, in this study, we look into how the performance of models trained on these synthetic data may vary with the subjectivity of classification.Our results indicate that subjectivity, at both the task level and instance level, is negatively associated with the performance of the model trained on synthetic data.We conclude by discussing the implications of our work on the potential and limitations of leveraging LLM for synthetic data generation 1 .

With the increased integration of AI technologies in human decision making processes, adversarial attacks on AI models become a greater concern than ever before as they may significantly hurt humans’ trust in AI models and decrease the effectiveness of human-AI collaboration. While many adversarial attack methods have been proposed to decrease the performance of an AI model, limited attention has been paid on understanding how these attacks will impact the human decision makers interacting with the model, and accordingly, how to strategically deploy adversarial attacks to maximize the reduction of human trust and reliance. In this paper, through a human-subject experiment, we first show that in AI-assisted decision making, the timing of the attacks largely influences how much humans decrease their trust in and reliance on AI—the decrease is particularly salient when attacks occur on decision making tasks that humans are highly confident themselves. Based on these insights, we next propose an algorithmic framework to infer the human decision maker’s hidden trust in the AI model and dynamically decide when the attacker should launch an attack to the model. Our evaluations show that following the proposed approach, attackers deploy more efficient attacks and achieve higher utility than adopting other baseline strategies.

Biased language is prevalent in today's online social media. To reduce the amount of online biased language, one critical first step is to accurately detect such biased language, ideally automatically. This is a challenging problem, however, as the annotated data necessary for training a biased language classifier is either scarce and costly (e.g., when collected from experts), or noisy and potentially biased on their own (e.g., when collected from crowd workers). The biased language classifier built based on these annotations may thus be inaccurate, and sometimes unfair (e.g., have systematic accuracy disparities across texts with different political leanings). In this paper, we propose a novel method, CLEARE, for biased language detection, in which we utilize self-supervised contrastive learning to enhance the biased language classifier---we learn a robust encoder of the textual data through solving a min-max optimization problem, so that the encoder could help achieve the best classification performance even if the worst data augmentation strategy is selected. Extensive evaluations suggest that CLEARE shows substantial improvements compared to the state-of-art biased language detection methods on several benchmark datasets, in terms of improving both the accuracy and the fairness of the detection.

Existing deep neural networks have found success in estimation of event-based optical flow, but are at the expense of complicated architectures. Moreover, few prior works discuss how to tackle with the noise problem of event camera, which would severely contaminate the data quality and make estimation an ill-posed problem. In this work, we present a lightweight pyramid network with attention mechanism to learn optical flow from events data. Specially, the network is designed according to two-well established principles: Laplacian pyramidal decomposition and channel attention mechanism. By integrating Laplacian pyramidal processing into CNN, the learning problem is simplified into several subproblems at each pyramid level, which can be handled by a relatively shallow network with few parameters. The channel attention block, embedded in each pyramid level, treats channels of feature map unequally and provides extra flexibility in suppressing background noises. The size of the proposed network is about only 5% of previous methods while our method still achieves state-of-the-art performance on the benchmark dataset. The experimental video samples of continuous flow estimation is presented at: https://github.com/xfleezy/blob.