arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Nuria Oliver

Publications and source records attributed to Nuria Oliver.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Thinking Is Not Writing: Designing AI Chatbots to Connect Reasoning and Revision

Supporting students' argumentative writing with AI requires connecting reflection to their revision processes. We present Maike, a Socratic chatbot supporting writing through argument diagnosis, targeted questioning, and a student model across Think and Write modes. In a classroom study, 65 secondary-school students used Maike or a control chatbot sharing the interface, language model, and Think/Write modes. Approximately 40% of students improved their essay scores. However, Maike users engaged more in idea-level dialogue (56% vs. 44%) and moved iteratively between discussion and editing. Transitions from ideas discussed in dialogue to revisions were positively associated with score gains. These findings suggest a design target for AI writing support: coordinating reflection with revision. We contribute an architecture for supporting argumentative reasoning without generating essay text and an approach linking interaction patterns to writing processes and outcomes. As AI becomes embedded in classrooms, understanding these connections is essential to assessing (and designing for) its educational value.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Personality Without Persons? A Psychometric Critique of Big Five Testing in Large Language Models

Human personality inventories are increasingly used to characterize large language models (LLMs), compare systems, and inform downstream governance claims. Yet, these inventories were developed and validated for humans, and it remains unclear whether they are valid for non-human systems. We present a systematic psychometric evaluation of Big Five personality measurement in LLMs. We ask three research questions: Do Big Five inventories a) appropriately describe LLMs, b) capture meaningful differences between models, and c) reflect internal factors consistent with human personality? We assess the content validity of five candidate Big Five inventories and administer the best-performing inventory to N = 264 LLMs spanning 50 model families. Our findings are threefold. First, Big Five items adapted for LLMs achieve acceptable content validity, whereas the original human-developed items do not. Second, Big Five inventories fail to capture meaningful differences across LLMs: between-model variance accounts for only 7% - 17% of the total score variance. Third, LLMs responses do not reproduce the canonical Big Five five-factor structure of human personality, with four of the five personality facets collapsing into one (r >= .90). Moreover, comparisons between base and instruction-tuned variants suggest that alignment training shifts Big Five scores toward socially desirable profiles. These findings demonstrate that Big Five inventories do not measure a construct equivalent to human personality in LLMs. Thus, using human personality frameworks to characterize, benchmark, compare, or govern LLMs risks producing misleading conclusions. We highlight the need for evaluation frameworks that are specifically designed and validated for LLMs, rather than transferring human psychological constructs without first establishing their validity.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Polarity Blindness in LLM Safety: A Systematic Study of Negation, Antonym Substitution, and Adversarial Framing

Negation remains a persistent challenge for language models across NLP tasks and modalities. We show that this weakness can undermine LLM safety guardrails through a structural vulnerability we term polarity blindness: the failure to recognize harmful intent after polarity-altering linguistic transformations. We study two forms of polarity inversion: grammatical negation and antonym replacement, and use synonym replacement as a polarity-preserving control. We further test whether an adversarial textual wrapper amplifies these failures. Using a 260-prompt benchmark across 10 state-of-the-art LLMs and 3 languages (English, Spanish, Czech), stratified by harmfulness potential and evaluated on a validated 0-5 harm scale, we find that polarity blindness affects most evaluated models, with mean harm scores reaching 4.12 for the most vulnerable model. The effect persists across typologically differing negation systems, suggesting that polarity blindness reflects a broader limitation in semantic robustness rather than a language- or grammar-specific failure.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Happy Young Women, Grumpy Old Men? Emotion-Driven Demographic Biases in Synthetic Face Generation

Synthetic faces from text-to-image (T2I) models pervade digital media, yet their demographic biases under emotionally conditioned prompts remain poorly understood. We aim to systematically audit how emotionally conditioned prompts affect demographic and perceived-attractiveness biases in synthetic faces generated by T2I models, with particular attention to intersectional patterns and cross-ecosystem differences across model families. We audited eight (4 Western and 4 Chinese) T2I models and generated 56,000 faces under seven prompt conditions: a neutral baseline and six emotion conditions. We quantified biases in gender, race, age, and perceived attractiveness using information-theoretic divergence metrics. We further conducted intersectional analyses across combined demographic attributes and compared patterns between the Western and Chinese model groups to assess cross-ecosystem consistency and divergence in bias behavior. All models show strong overrepresentation of young faces, and most also overrepresent White-coded individuals. Intersectional analysis reveals compound underrepresentation or near-erasure of specific demographic combinations, such as young x female x Black faces, which are largely absent across models and are not captured by single-attribute audits. Emotion prompts act as additional demographic selectors: negatively valenced emotions (including sadness and fear) consistently shift outputs toward White, middle-aged, male-coded faces. This produces a valence-driven mapping that is also associated with lower perceived attractiveness in generated faces. These findings indicate that demographic bias in T2I face generation is both pervasive and shaped by emotional conditioning. They underscore the need for intersectional, emotion-conditioned, and multilingual demographic audits as part of standard pre-deployment evaluation practices.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Capability $\neq$ Interpretability: Human Interpretability of Vision Foundation Models

How interpretable are the features of leading vision models? The question is increasingly pressing as these models move from research benchmarks into high-stakes deployments, yet existing methods cannot answer it reliably. We address this gap with a framework for measuring and comparing the human interpretability of vision models, built around two complementary psychophysics protocols: (1) localizability---can an observer predict where a feature fires on a novel image?---and (2) semanticity---can an observer accurately describe what the feature represents? Features are recovered via sparse autoencoders, and a chance-anchored scoring function places every model on a common scale. Applying the framework to six vision transformers---two supervised ViTs and four foundation models (DINOv2, DINOv3, CLIP, SigLIP)---we collected more than $15{,}000$ behavioral responses, of which we analyzed $13{,}400$ responses from the $377$ participants who passed our pre-specified quality checks. We find that foundation models are consistently $less$ interpretable than their size-matched supervised counterparts, and the gap is not a capability tradeoff: interpretability does not correlate with downstream task performance on any benchmark we examine. What does correlate is the locality of a feature's activations and coarse-grained semantic alignment with humans---models with focal activations and representations that reflect the world's broad categorical structure tend to produce more interpretable features. The two protocols yield strongly correlated rankings and share the same predictors, establishing interpretability as an independent, measurable dimension of representation quality---and, surprisingly, one on which the foundation models we tested fall below their size-matched supervised baseline. Capability alone cannot close that gap, but locality and coarse-grained alignment might.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

Mind the Style: Impact of Communication Style on Human-Chatbot Interaction

Conversational agents increasingly mediate everyday digital interactions, yet the effects of their communication style on user experience and task success remain insufficiently understood. Addressing this gap, we report a between-subject user study in which participants interacted with one of two versions of a chatbot called NAVI, which assisted them in an interactive map-based 2D navigation task. The two chatbot versions were designed to differ primarily in communication style: one used a friendly and supportive tone, while the other used a direct and task-focused tone. We also included a control condition where participants did not interact with a chatbot but received the step-by-step navigation instructions. The friendly chatbot significantly increased users' communication satisfaction and was associated with higher task success than the direct chatbot. However, participants in the control condition achieved the highest task success overall, suggesting that chatbot interaction may introduce overhead in tasks that can be completed effectively using straightforward instructions. We did not find significant evidence that gender moderated the effects of communication style, although exploratory gender-stratified analyses suggested patterns that warrant further investigation. Finally, we found limited evidence of global linguistic accommodation, with only selective feature-level alignment. These findings suggest that chatbot communication style influences users' perceptions of conversational agents and may improve performance relative to less supportive chatbot designs, but the overall value of chatbot interaction depends on the task context. The study highlights the need for task-sensitive, transparent and carefully evaluated communication-style choices in conversational-agent design.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

From Interpretability Methods to Interpretable Models

More than a decade in, explainable AI (XAI) for computer vision has assembled a mature toolbox: attribution, feature visualization, concept-based, and circuit-based methods. Yet almost all of the field's effort has gone into building and comparing these methods, and little into the question they were meant to answer---how interpretable are our models, and are we making progress as they evolve? We argue for shifting the field's focus from methods to models, along two complementary lines. One is already within reach: existing tools let us characterize and compare what different models represent and compute. The other is harder, and largely neglected: whether a model can actually be understood by the humans who rely on it---the independent evaluators on whom trust and certification depend, not the experts confirming what they already expect. It can only be measured, not inferred. We review why the toolbox is mature enough to support both, survey the thin body of work comparing models, draw a parallel to systems neuroscience, and close with a model-centric XAI agenda.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

From Substitution to Scaffolding: Breaking the Self-Reinforcing Harm Cycle of AI in Education (and Beyond)

Artificial intelligence is being adopted in educational settings faster than its consequences are understood. We argue that the central risk is misalignment: AI that eliminates human effort erodes the very capacities education is meant to build. We organize this risk into an integrative framework of four interrelated dimensions -cognition, agency, emotional well-being, and ethics- linked by a self-reinforcing cycle where cognitive offloading reduces effort, weakens agency, and compounds emotional and ethical harm. We ground the framework in the perspective of a small cohort of students: an exploratory analysis of 49 International Baccalaureate argumentative essays about the impact of AI reveals that learners perceive these risks, with $80\%$ of essays reporting that AI reliance reduces thinking. At the same time, the essays articulate a consistent vision of the AI the students want: systems that support rather than replace learning by withholding immediate answers, prompting recall, and encouraging reflection through questions instead of solutions. These desiderata closely align with established principles from the learning sciences. Building on these insights, we propose a single design principle, scaffold, do not substitute. We argue that this principle extends beyond education. It represents a broader challenge for the AI ecosystem: any system that mediates human thinking can either weaken human capabilities through substitution or strengthen them through scaffolding. We conclude by outlining a research agenda for developing AI systems that foster enduring human capacity, an imperative not only for learners but, ultimately, for democratic societies.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Between Help and Harm: An Evaluation of Mental Health Crisis Handling by LLMs

Large language model-powered chatbots have transformed how people seek information, especially in high-stakes contexts like mental health. Despite their support capabilities, safe detection and response to crises such as suicidal ideation and self-harm are still unclear, hindered by the lack of unified crisis taxonomies and clinical evaluation standards. We address this by creating: (1) a taxonomy of six crisis categories; (2) a dataset of over 2,000 inputs from 12 mental health datasets, classified into these categories; and (3) a clinical response assessment protocol. We also use LLMs to identify crisis inputs and audit five models for response safety and appropriateness. First, we built a clinical-informed crisis taxonomy and evaluation protocol. Next, we curated 2,252 relevant examples from over 239,000 user inputs, then tested three LLMs for automatic classification. In addition, we evaluated five models for the appropriateness of their responses to a user's crisis, graded on a 5-point Likert scale from harmful (1) to appropriate (5). While some models respond reliably to explicit crises, risks still exist. Many outputs, especially in self-harm and suicidal categories, are inappropriate or unsafe. Different models perform variably; some, like gpt-5-nano and deepseek-v3.2-exp, have low harm rates, but others, such as gpt-4o-mini and grok-4-fast, generate more unsafe responses. All models struggle with indirect signals, default replies, and context misalignment. These results highlight the urgent need for better safeguards, crisis detection, and context-aware responses in LLMs. They also show that alignment and safety practices, beyond scale, are crucial for reliable crisis support. Our taxonomy, datasets, and evaluation methods support ongoing AI mental health research, aiming to reduce harm and protect vulnerable users.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

LLMs Aren't Human: A Critical Perspective on LLM Personality

A growing body of research examines personality traits in Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in human-agent collaboration. Prior work has frequently applied the Big Five inventory to assess LLM behavior analogous to human personality, without questioning the underlying assumptions. This paper critically evaluates whether LLM responses to personality tests satisfy six defining characteristics of personality. We find that none are fully met, indicating that such assessments do not measure a construct equivalent to human personality. We propose a research agenda for shifting from anthropomorphic trait attribution toward functional evaluations, clarifying what personality tests actually capture in LLMs and developing LLM-specific frameworks for characterizing stable, intrinsic behavior.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Choosing the right basis for interpretability: Psychophysical comparison between neuron-based and dictionary-based representations

Interpretability research often adopts a neuron-centric lens, treating individual neurons as the fundamental units of explanation. However, neuron-level explanations can be undermined by superposition, where single units respond to mixtures of unrelated patterns. Dictionary learning methods, such as sparse autoencoders and non-negative matrix factorization, offer a promising alternative by learning a new basis over layer activations. Despite this promise, direct human evaluations comparing neuron-based and dictionary-based representations remain limited. We conducted three large-scale online psychophysics experiments (N=481) comparing explanations derived from neuron-based and dictionary-based representations in two convolutional neural networks (ResNet50, VGG16). We operationalize interpretability via visual coherence: a basis is more interpretable if humans can reliably recognize a common visual pattern in its maximally activating images and generalize that pattern to new images. Across experiments, dictionary-based representations were consistently more interpretable than neuron-based representations, with the advantage increasing in deeper layers. Critically, because models differ in how neuron-aligned their representations are -- with ResNet50 exhibiting greater superposition, neuron-based evaluations can mask cross-model differences, such that ResNet50's higher interpretability emerges only under dictionary-based comparisons. These results provide psychophysical evidence that dictionary-based representations offer a stronger foundation for interpretability and caution against model comparisons based solely on neuron-level analyses.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

Why do we Trust Chatbots? From Normative Principles to Behavioral Drivers

As chatbots increasingly blur the boundary between automated systems and human conversation, the foundations of trust in these systems warrant closer examination. While regulatory and policy frameworks tend to define trust in normative terms, the trust users place in chatbots often emerges from behavioral mechanisms. In many cases, this trust is not earned through demonstrated trustworthiness but is instead shaped by interactional design choices that leverage cognitive biases to influence user behavior. Based on this observation, we propose reframing chatbots not as companions or assistants, but as highly skilled salespeople whose objectives are determined by the deploying organization. We argue that the coexistence of competing notions of "trust" under a shared term obscures important distinctions between psychological trust formation and normative trustworthiness. Addressing this gap requires further research and stronger support mechanisms to help users appropriately calibrate trust in conversational AI systems.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

International AI Safety Report 2026

The International AI Safety Report 2026 synthesises the current scientific evidence on the capabilities, emerging risks, and safety of general-purpose AI systems. The report series was mandated by the nations attending the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK. 29 nations, the UN, the OECD, and the EU each nominated a representative to the report's Expert Advisory Panel. Over 100 AI experts contributed, representing diverse perspectives and disciplines. Led by the Report's Chair, these independent experts collectively had full discretion over the report's content.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

AI in Education Beyond Learning Outcomes: Cognition, Agency, Emotion, and Ethics

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being integrated into educational contexts, promising personalized support and increased efficiency. However, growing evidence suggests that the uncritical adoption of AI may produce unintended harms that extend beyond individual learning outcomes to affect broader societal goals. This paper examines the societal implications of AI in education through an integrative framework with four interrelated dimensions: cognition, agency, emotional well-being, and ethics. Drawing on research from education, cognitive science, psychology, and ethics, we synthesize existing evidence to show how AI-driven cognitive offloading, diminished learner agency, emotional disengagement, and surveillance-oriented practices can mutually reinforce one another. We argue that these dynamics risk undermining critical thinking, intellectual autonomy, emotional resilience, and trust, capacities that are foundational both for effective learning and also for democratic participation and informed civic engagement. Moreover, AI's impact is contingent on design and governance: pedagogically aligned, ethically grounded, and human-centered AI systems can scaffold effortful reasoning, support learner agency, and preserve meaningful social interaction. By integrating fragmented strands of prior research into a unified framework, this paper advances the discourse on responsible AI in education and offers actionable implications for educators, designers, and institutions. Ultimately, the paper contends that the central challenge is not whether AI should be used in education, but how it can be designed and governed to support learning while safeguarding the social and civic purposes of education.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Beyond Holistic Scores: Automatic Trait-Based Quality Scoring of Argumentative Essays

Automated Essay Scoring systems have traditionally focused on holistic scores, limiting their pedagogical usefulness, especially in the case of complex essay genres such as argumentative writing. In educational contexts, teachers and learners require interpretable, trait-level feedback that aligns with instructional goals and established rubrics. In this paper, we study trait-based Automatic Argumentative Essay Scoring using two complementary modeling paradigms designed for realistic educational deployment: (1) structured in-context learning with small open-source LLMs, and (2) a supervised, encoder-based BigBird model with a CORAL-style ordinal regression formulation, optimized for long-sequence understanding. We conduct a systematic evaluation on the ASAP++ dataset, which includes essay scores across five quality traits, offering strong coverage of core argumentation dimensions. LLMs are prompted with designed, rubric-aligned in-context examples, along with feedback and confidence requests, while we explicitly model ordinality in scores with the BigBird model via the rank-consistent CORAL framework. Our results show that explicitly modeling score ordinality substantially improves agreement with human raters across all traits, outperforming LLMs and nominal classification and regression-based baselines. This finding reinforces the importance of aligning model objectives with rubric semantics for educational assessment. At the same time, small open-source LLMs achieve a competitive performance without task-specific fine-tuning, particularly for reasoning-oriented traits, while enabling transparent, privacy-preserving, and locally deployable assessment scenarios. Our findings provide methodological, modeling, and practical insights for the design of AI-based educational systems that aim to deliver interpretable, rubric-aligned feedback for argumentative writing.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Aesthetics as Structural Harm: Algorithmic Lookism Across Text-to-Image Generation and Classification

This paper examines algorithmic lookism-the systematic preferential treatment based on physical appearance-in text-to-image (T2I) generative AI and a downstream gender classification task. Through the analysis of 26,400 synthetic faces created with Stable Diffusion 2.1 and 3.5 Medium, we demonstrate how generative AI models systematically associate facial attractiveness with positive attributes and vice-versa, mirroring socially constructed biases rather than evidence-based correlations. Furthermore, we find significant gender bias in three gender classification algorithms depending on the attributes of the input faces. Our findings reveal three critical harms: (1) the systematic encoding of attractiveness-positive attribute associations in T2I models; (2) gender disparities in classification systems, where women's faces, particularly those generated with negative attributes, suffer substantially higher misclassification rates than men's; and (3) intensifying aesthetic constraints in newer models through age homogenization, gendered exposure patterns, and geographic reductionism. These convergent patterns reveal algorithmic lookism as systematic infrastructure operating across AI vision systems, compounding existing inequalities through both representation and recognition. Disclaimer: This work includes visual and textual content that reflects stereotypical associations between physical appearance and socially constructed attributes, including gender, race, and traits associated with social desirability. Any such associations found in this study emerge from the biases embedded in generative AI systems-not from empirical truths or the authors' views.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2025

International AI Safety Report 2025: Second Key Update: Technical Safeguards and Risk Management

This second update to the 2025 International AI Safety Report assesses new developments in general-purpose AI risk management over the past year. It examines how researchers, public institutions, and AI developers are approaching risk management for general-purpose AI. In recent months, for example, three leading AI developers applied enhanced safeguards to their new models, as their internal pre-deployment testing could not rule out the possibility that these models could be misused to help create biological weapons. Beyond specific precautionary measures, there have been a range of other advances in techniques for making AI models and systems more reliable and resistant to misuse. These include new approaches in adversarial training, data curation, and monitoring systems. In parallel, institutional frameworks that operationalise and formalise these technical capabilities are starting to emerge: the number of companies publishing Frontier AI Safety Frameworks more than doubled in 2025, and governments and international organisations have established a small number of governance frameworks for general-purpose AI, focusing largely on transparency and risk assessment.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2025

ImageSet2Text: Describing Sets of Images through Text

In the era of large-scale visual data, understanding collections of images is a challenging yet important task. To this end, we introduce ImageSet2Text, a novel method to automatically generate natural language descriptions of image sets. Based on large language models, visual-question answering chains, an external lexical graph, and CLIP-based verification, ImageSet2Text iteratively extracts key concepts from image subsets and organizes them into a structured concept graph. We conduct extensive experiments evaluating the quality of the generated descriptions in terms of accuracy, completeness, and user satisfaction. We also examine the method's behavior through ablation studies, scalability assessments, and failure analyses. Results demonstrate that ImageSet2Text combines data-driven AI and symbolic representations to reliably summarize large image collections for a wide range of applications.

cs.CV↗