Wei Gao

Human behaviors are often guided or constrained by social norms, which are defined as shared, commonsense rules. For example, underlying an action ``\textit{report a witnessed crime}" are social norms that inform our conduct, such as ``\textit{It is expected to be brave to report crimes}''. Current AI systems that assess valence (i.e., support or oppose) of human actions by leveraging large-scale data training not grounded on explicit norms may be difficult to explain, and thus untrustworthy. Emulating human assessors by considering social norms can help AI models better understand and predict valence. While multiple norms come into play, conflicting norms can create tension and directly influence human behavior. For example, when deciding whether to ``\textit{report a witnessed crime}'', one may balance \textit{bravery} against \textit{self-protection}. In this paper, we introduce \textit{ClarityEthic}, a novel ethical assessment approach, to enhance valence prediction and explanation by generating conflicting social norms behind human actions, which strengthens the moral reasoning capabilities of language models by using a contrastive learning strategy. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms strong baseline approaches, and human evaluations confirm that the generated social norms provide plausible explanations for the assessment of human behaviors.

Identifying harmful memes is challenging due to their implicit meanings, which are not always evident from texts and images alone. Existing solutions often lack clear explanations to justify their decisions. To address this gap, we propose an explainable approach, ExplainHM++, which detects harmful memes by reasoning over competing rationales from both harmful and harmless perspectives. First, inspired by the capabilities of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) in text generation and multimodal reasoning, we develop ExplainHM, a one-stage multimodal debate in which LMMs generate explanations through contradictory arguments. Second, we fine-tune a small language model to serve as a judge in the debate, improving the integration of harmfulness rationales with the multimodal content of memes. However, we observe that a naive multimodal debate remains vulnerable, as it heavily depends on the inherent reasoning ability of LMMs to understand the memes. Given the evolving and noisy nature of memes, we further introduce a meme sample retrieval mechanism and a retrieval-augmented debate paradigm to strengthen and refine LMM-generated explanations. Extensive experiments on three public meme datasets demonstrate that ExplainHM++ not only outperforms state-of-the-art methods but also provides superior, interpretable explanations for harmful meme detection.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit knowledge disparities across languages. Encouraging LLMs to \textit{abstain} when faced with knowledge gaps is a promising strategy to reduce hallucinations in multilingual settings. Current abstention strategies for multilingual scenarios primarily rely on generating feedback in various languages using LLMs and performing self-reflection. However, these methods can be adversely impacted by inaccuracies and biases in the generated feedback. To address this, from a causal perspective, we introduce \textit{CausalAbstain}, a method that helps LLMs determine whether to utilize multiple generated feedback responses and how to identify the most useful ones. Extensive experiments demonstrate that \textit{CausalAbstain} effectively selects helpful feedback and enhances abstention decisions with interpretability in both native language (\textsc{Casual-native}) and multilingual (\textsc{Causal-multi}) settings, outperforming strong baselines on two benchmark datasets covering encyclopedic and commonsense knowledge QA tasks. Our code and data are open-sourced at https://github.com/peachch/CausalAbstain.

The proliferation of misinformation, such as rumors on social media, has drawn significant attention, prompting various expressions of stance among users. Although rumor detection and stance detection are distinct tasks, they can complement each other. Rumors can be identified by cross-referencing stances in related posts, and stances are influenced by the nature of the rumor. However, existing stance detection methods often require post-level stance annotations, which are costly to obtain. We propose a novel LLM-enhanced MIL approach to jointly predict post stance and claim class labels, supervised solely by claim labels, using an undirected microblog propagation model. Our weakly supervised approach relies only on bag-level labels of claim veracity, aligning with multi-instance learning (MIL) principles. To achieve this, we transform the multi-class problem into multiple MIL-based binary classification problems. We then employ a discriminative attention layer to aggregate the outputs from these classifiers into finer-grained classes. Experiments conducted on three rumor datasets and two stance datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, highlighting strong connections between rumor veracity and expressed stances in responding posts. Our method shows promising performance in joint rumor and stance detection compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

The proliferation of misinformation, such as rumors on social media, has drawn significant attention, prompting various expressions of stance among users. Although rumor detection and stance detection are distinct tasks, they can complement each other. Rumors can be identified by cross-referencing stances in related posts, and stances are influenced by the nature of the rumor. However, existing stance detection methods often require post-level stance annotations, which are costly to obtain. We propose a novel LLM-enhanced MIL approach to jointly predict post stance and claim class labels, supervised solely by claim labels, using an undirected microblog propagation model. Our weakly supervised approach relies only on bag-level labels of claim veracity, aligning with multi-instance learning (MIL) principles. To achieve this, we transform the multi-class problem into multiple MIL-based binary classification problems. We then employ a discriminative attention layer to aggregate the outputs from these classifiers into finer-grained classes. Experiments conducted on three rumor datasets and two stance datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, highlighting strong connections between rumor veracity and expressed stances in responding posts. Our method shows promising performance in joint rumor and stance detection compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

Stance detection has emerged as a popular task in natural language processing research, enabled largely by the abundance of target-specific social media data. While there has been considerable research on the development of stance detection models, datasets, and application, we highlight important gaps pertaining to (i) a lack of theoretical conceptualization of stance, and (ii) the treatment of stance at an individual- or user-level, as opposed to message-level. In this paper, we first review the interdisciplinary origins of stance as an individual-level construct to highlight relevant attributes (e.g., psychological features) that might be useful to incorporate in stance detection models. Further, we argue that recent pre-trained and large language models (LLMs) might offer a way to flexibly infer such user-level attributes and/or incorporate them in modelling stance. To better illustrate this, we briefly review and synthesize the emerging corpus of studies on using LLMs for inferring stance, and specifically on incorporating user attributes in such tasks. We conclude by proposing a four-point agenda for pursuing stance detection research that is theoretically informed, inclusive, and practically impactful.