Digital Twins (DTs) offer powerful tools for managing complex infrastructure systems, but their effectiveness is often limited by challenges in integrating unstructured knowledge. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) bring new potential to address this gap, with strong abilities in extracting and organizing diverse textual information. We therefore propose LSDTs (LLM-Augmented Semantic Digital Twins), a framework that helps LLMs extract planning knowledge from unstructured documents like environmental regulations and technical guidelines, and organize it into a formal ontology. This ontology forms a semantic layer that powers a digital twin—a virtual model of the physical system—allowing it to simulate realistic, regulation-aware planning scenarios. We evaluate LSDTs through a case study of offshore wind farm planning in Maryland, including its application during Hurricane Sandy. Results demonstrate that LSDTs support interpretable, regulation-aware layout optimization, enable high-fidelity simulation, and enhance adaptability in infrastructure planning. This work shows the potential of combining generative AI with digital twins to support complex, knowledge-driven planning tasks.

Multimodal Large Language Models are primarily trained and evaluated on aligned image-text pairs, which leaves their ability to detect and resolve real-world inconsistencies largely unexplored. In open-domain applications visual and textual cues often conflict, requiring models to perform structured reasoning beyond surface-level alignment. We introduce CrossCheck-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating contradiction detection in multimodal inputs. The benchmark adopts a hierarchical task framework covering three levels of reasoning complexity and defines seven atomic capabilities essential for resolving cross-modal inconsistencies. CrossCheck-Bench includes 15k question-answer pairs sourced from real-world artifacts with synthetically injected contradictions. The dataset is constructed through a multi-stage annotation pipeline involving more than 450 expert hours to ensure semantic validity and calibrated difficulty across perception, integration, and reasoning. We evaluate 13 state-of-the-art vision-language models and observe a consistent performance drop as tasks shift from perceptual matching to logical contradiction detection. Most models perform well on isolated entity recognition but fail when multiple clues must be synthesized for conflict reasoning. Capability-level analysis further reveals uneven skill acquisition, especially in tasks requiring multi-step inference or rule-based validation. Additional probing shows that conventional prompting strategies such as Chain-of-Thought and Set-of-Mark yield only marginal gains. By contrast, methods that interleave symbolic reasoning with grounded visual processing achieve more stable improvements. These results highlight a persistent bottleneck in multimodal reasoning and suggest new directions for building models capable of robust cross-modal verification.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integral to daily life, users are engaging with multiple LLM chatbots for various needs; however, prior research on LLM risks often remains lab-based or focuses on single LLMs like ChatGPT or singular risks like privacy. To gain a multi-risk, cross-chatbot understanding of user experiences, we analyze Reddit discussions around seven major LLM chatbots using the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. We find that user-reported risks are unevenly distributed and chatbot-specific: ChatGPT is associated with safety and fairness concerns, Gemini with privacy, and Claude with security and resilience. Less frequent risks, such as explainability and privacy, appear as user trade-offs, whereas prevalent risks like fairness are experienced as direct harms. Our findings underscore the need to operationalize chatbot-specific risk mitigation, moving beyond system-centered risk mitigation to human-centered interventions that align with users’ lived experiences.

AI companions enable deep emotional relationships by engaging a user’s sense of identity, but they also pose risks like unhealthy emotional dependence. Mitigating these risks requires first understanding the underlying process of identity construction and negotiation with AI companions. Focusing on Character.AI (C.AI), a popular AI companion, we conducted an LLM-assisted thematic analysis of 22,374 online discussions on its subreddit. Using Identity Negotiation Theory as an analytical lens, we identified a three-stage process: 1) five user motivations; 2) an identity negotiation process involving three communication expectations and four identity co-construction strategies; and 3) three emotional outcomes. Our findings surface the identity work users perform as both performers and directors to co-construct identities in negotiation with C.AI. This process takes place within a socio-emotional sandbox where users can experiment with social roles and express emotions without non-human partners. Finally, we offer design implications for emotionally supporting users while mitigating the risks.

Large language models (LLMs) chatbots like ChatGPT are increasingly used for mental health support. They offer accessible, therapeutic support but also raise concerns about misinformation, over-reliance, and risks in high-stakes contexts of mental health. We crowdsource large-scale users' posts from six major social media platforms to examine how people discuss their interactions with LLM chatbots across different mental health conditions. Through an LLM-assisted pipeline grounded in Value-Sensitive Design (VSD), we mapped the relationships across user-reported sentiments, mental health conditions, perspectives, and values. Our results reveal that the use of LLM chatbots is condition-specific. Users with neurodivergent conditions (e.g., ADHD, ASD) report strong positive sentiments and instrumental or appraisal support, whereas higher-risk disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) show more negative sentiments. We further uncover how user perspectives co-occur with underlying values, such as identity, autonomy, and privacy. Finally, we discuss shifting from "one-size-fits-all" chatbot design toward condition-specific, value-sensitive LLM design.

Multi-robot systems are emerging as a promising solution to the growing demand for productivity and safety across industrial sectors. However, effectively coordinating multiple robots in dynamic and uncertain environments, such as construction sites, remains a challenge, particularly due to unpredictable factors like material delays, unexpected site conditions, and weather-induced disruptions. To address these challenges, this study proposes an adaptive task allocation framework that strategically leverages the synergistic potential of Digital Twins, Integer Programming (IP), and Large Language Models (LLMs). The multi-robot task allocation problem is formally modeled using IP, considering task dependencies, robot heterogeneity, scheduling constraints, and replanning needs. A narrative-driven schedule adaptation mechanism is introduced, where unstructured natural language inputs are interpreted by an LLM to autonomously update optimization constraints, enabling human-in-the-loop flexibility without manual programming. A digital twin system enables real-time synchronization between physical operations and their digital representations and serves as the user interface, creating a closed-loop feedback mechanism that keeps the system responsive to site changes. A case study demonstrates both the computational efficiency of the optimization algorithm and the reasoning performance of LLMs, achieving over 97% accuracy in constraint and parameter extraction. The results confirm the practicality, adaptability, and cross-domain applicability of the proposed methods.

Efficient simulation is essential for enhancing proactive preparedness for sudden-onset disasters such as earthquakes.Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) as world models show promise in simulating complex scenarios.This study examines multiple LLMs to proactively estimate perceived earthquake impacts.Leveraging multimodal datasets including geospatial, socioeconomic, building, and street-level imagery data, our framework generates Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) predictions at zip code and county scales.Evaluations on the 2014 Napa and 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes using USGS "Did You Feel It? (DYFI)" reports demonstrate significant alignment, as evidenced by a high correlation of 0.88 and a low RMSE of 0.77 as compared to real reports at the zip code level.Techniques such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and in-context learning (ICL) can improve simulation performance, while visual inputs notably enhance accuracy compared to structured numerical data alone.These findings show the promise of LLMs in simulating disaster impacts that can help strengthen preevent planning.

Manually annotating data for computational social science tasks can be costly, time-consuming, and emotionally draining. While recent work suggests that LLMs can perform such annotation tasks in zero-shot settings, little is known about how prompt design impacts LLMs' compliance and accuracy. We conduct a large-scale multi-prompt experiment to test how model selection (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, PaLM2, and Falcon7b) and prompt design features (definition inclusion, output type, explanation, and prompt length) impact the compliance and accuracy of LLM-generated annotations on four highly relevant and diverse CSS tasks (toxicity, sentiment, rumor stance, and news frames). Our results show that LLM compliance and accuracy are prompt-dependent. For instance, prompting for numerical scores instead of labels reduces all LLMs' compliance and accuracy. Concise prompts can significantly reduce prompting costs but also lead to lower accuracy on tasks like toxicity. Furthermore, minor prompt changes like asking for an explanation can cause large changes in the distribution of LLM-generated labels. By assessing the impact of prompt design on the quality and distribution of LLM-generated annotations, this work serves as both a practical guide and a warning for using LLMs in CSS research.

Complex reasoning ability is one of the most important features of Large Language Models (LLMs). Numerous benchmarks have been established to assess the reasoning abilities of LLMs. However, they are inadequate in offering a rigorous evaluation and prone to the risk of overfitting, as these publicly accessible and static benchmarks allow models to potentially tailor their responses to specific benchmark metrics, thereby inflating their performance. Addressing these limitations, we introduce a new benchmark NPHardEval. It contains a broad spectrum of 900 algorithmic questions belonging up to the NP-Hard complexity class, offering a rigorous measure of the reasoning ability of LLMs utilizing computational complexity. Moreover, this benchmark is designed with a dynamic update mechanism, where the datapoints are refreshed on a monthly basis. Such regular updates play a crucial role in mitigating the risk of LLMs overfitting to the benchmark, promoting a more accurate and reliable assessment of their reasoning capabilities. The benchmark dataset and code of NPHardEval are available at https://github.com/casmlab/NPHardEval.

Generative AI has exhibited considerable potential to transform various industries and public life. The role of news media coverage of generative AI is pivotal in shaping public perceptions and judgments about this significant technological innovation. This paper provides in-depth analysis and rich insights into the temporal and spatial distribution of topics, sentiment, and substantive themes within global news coverage focusing on the latest emerging technology—generative AI. We collected a comprehensive dataset of English news articles (January 2018 to November 2023, N = 24,827) through ProQuest databases. For topic modeling, we employed the BERTopic technique and combined it with qualitative coding to identify semantic themes. Subsequently, sentiment analysis was conducted using the RoBERTa-base model. Analysis of temporal patterns in the data reveals notable variability in coverage across key topics—business, corporate technological development, regulation and security, and education—with spikes in articles coinciding with major AI developments and policy discussions. Sentiment analysis shows a predominantly neutral to positive media stance, with the business-related articles exhibiting more positive sentiment, while regulation and security articles receive a reserved, neutral to negative sentiment. Our study offers a valuable framework to investigate global news discourse and evaluate news attitudes and themes related to emerging technologies.

Large language models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), are a class of language models that have demonstrated outstanding performance across a range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. LLMs have become a highly sought-after research area because of their ability to generate human-like language and their potential to revolutionize science and technology. In this study, we conduct bibliometric and discourse analyses of scholarly literature on LLMs. Synthesizing over 5,000 publications, this article serves as a roadmap for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to navigate the current landscape of LLMs research. We present the research trends from 2017 to early 2023, identifying patterns in research paradigms and collaborations. We start with analyzing the core algorithm developments and NLP tasks that are fundamental in LLMs research. We then investigate the applications of LLMs in various fields and domains, including medicine, engineering, social science, and humanities. Our review also reveals the dynamic, fast-paced evolution of LLMs research. Overall, this article offers valuable insights into the current state, impact, and potential of LLMs research and its applications.

Harmful textual content is pervasive on social media, poisoning online communities and negatively impacting participation. A common approach to this issue is developing detection models that rely on human annotations. However, the tasks required to build such models expose annotators to harmful and offensive content and may require significant time and cost to complete. Generative AI models have the potential to understand and detect harmful textual content. We used ChatGPT to investigate this potential and compared its performance with MTurker annotations for three frequently discussed concepts related to harmful textual content on social media: Hateful, Offensive, and Toxic (HOT). We designed five prompts to interact with ChatGPT and conducted four experiments eliciting HOT classifications. Our results show that ChatGPT can achieve an accuracy of approximately 80% when compared to MTurker annotations. Specifically, the model displays a more consistent classification for non-HOT comments than HOT comments compared to human annotations. Our findings also suggest that ChatGPT classifications align with the provided HOT definitions. However, ChatGPT classifies “hateful” and “offensive” as subsets of “toxic.” Moreover, the choice of prompts used to interact with ChatGPT impacts its performance. Based on these insights, our study provides several meaningful implications for employing ChatGPT to detect HOT content, particularly regarding the reliability and consistency of its performance, its understanding and reasoning of the HOT concept, and the impact of prompts on its performance. Overall, our study provides guidance on the potential of using generative AI models for moderating large volumes of user-generated textual content on social media.