Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking. How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes? We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit (2023-2026), combining LLM judgment on 7,500 sampled accusations of AI use, sentiment trajectories, speech-act coding of 300 confirmed accusations of AI use, and a matched-control test of accused versus non-accused parent comments. We found that the pejorative-label share of accusations rose more than tenfold on both platforms while a placebo vocabulary of pre-2022 inauthenticity terms (shill, astroturf) did not. This shift reflected a fast-growing trend of branding any suspicious or seemingly inauthentic prose as "AI slop". The slop frame now constitutes 94 percent of pejorative mentions, with the dominant comments shifting in tone from mockery toward gatekeeping and structural protest. The key surprise comes from a matched-control test which found that prose features that statistically distinguish AI from human text do not predict which human text gets accused as AI. The new accusations work as social gatekeeping of perceived authenticity without actually screening for AI. This research extends signaling theory by showing that substitute signals used socially can grow even when inaccurate if the underlying detection problem cannot be solved at the non-expert level. It shows that AI's effects on writing from the reader side are distinct from those on the production (writer) side. Detection technology cannot resolve this dynamic because the social function of accusations is increasingly to perform social gatekeeping and in-group signaling as opposed to identifying AI-generated writing.

A fundamental concept in linear algebra and its applications to network analysis is the Perron--Frobenius (PF) theorem, which underpins eigenvector-based centrality measures such as eigenvector centrality, PageRank, and hubs and authorities. By invoking the PF theorem, we know for strongly connected networks with positive edge weights that the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the weight matrix yields a well-defined centrality measure (namely, eigenvector centrality). Traditional formulations of the PF theorem and associated centrality measures assume that networks have real-valued weights. However, many networks in areas such as quantum information, quantum chemistry, electrodynamics, and machine learning have complex-valued edge weights. In this paper, we study generalizations of the PF theorem to complex-valued matrices, establish connections between these generalizations, and propose generalized eigenvector-based centrality measures to analyzing node importances in networks with complex edge weights. We also prove results about the existence of complex-weighted networks that satisfy generalized PF properties and calculate associated centrality measures for several examples, which we draw from application areas such as electron transport, circuit analysis, mathematical chemistry, and communication networks.

Deliberative polling promises to improve collective decision-making by exposing shareholders to a broad range of arguments before they vote. Yet ensuring that every voter encounters a representative sample of the reason space, the coverage problem, remains an open challenge, particularly at scale and in adversarial or strategically motivated electorates. This paper introduces a way of evaluating solutions using the LLM-based Agentic Bipolar Argumentation Simulator, grounded in a framework which formalises a poll as a six-tuple <Jend, Jopp, Ratt, Renh, VA, VR> of endorsing and opposing justifications, attack and enhance relations, and shareholder- and relation-weights. ABAS simulates N autonomous shareholder agents, each assigned a latent opinion according to desired distributions in [-1, 1], who sequentially vote, choose or author justifications, and optionally submit argumentation-graph links. The simulator implements recommendations that rank existing justifications by their observable endorsement mass. It evaluates the mechanism's success by coverage, namely the fraction of the corpus reason-tag set represented in the K recommendations presented to each shareholder, as a solution to the NP-hard Subsuming Justification Problem. Reported experiments characterise how creativity rate (pown), recommendation size (K), argumentation density (plinks), and population size (N) affect coverage and corpus diversity. In an authenticated electorate where Sybil attacks are impossible and only the relation graph is gameable, we stress-test the scoring with coordinated strategic voting attacks: a tag-flood attack collapses coverage, while author-count relation weighting through a reversed-PageRank rule resists the flood markedly better than uniform weights.

Accurate salary prediction is critical for bridging the information gap between employers and job seekers in modern labor markets. Existing approaches predominantly yield a single point estimate and treat job attributes such as location, occupation, and industry as independent categorical features, ignoring both the inherent uncertainty and multi-modality of real-world compensation data and the rich hierarchical and semantic-similarity relationships that govern pay norms. In this paper we propose GAT-MDN, a unified framework that addresses both limitations simultaneously. For each of the three attribute domains we construct a domain-specific graph whose edges encode (i) hierarchical parent-child containment and (ii) weighted similarity links derived from a pre-trained Sentence-Transformer. Parallel Graph Attention Networks (GATs) with edge-feature-aware attention learn rich, context-sensitive node representations from these multi-relational graphs. A priority-based hierarchical selection module then assembles a composite feature vector that gracefully handles missing or coarse attributes, and a Mixture Density Network (MDN) head maps this vector to the parameters of a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), yielding a full conditional salary distribution. Extensive experiments on a real-world Dutch job-posting dataset of over 1 million records demonstrate that GAT-MDN significantly outperforms a non-graph MLP-MDN baseline in both Negative Log-Likelihood (NLL) and Mean Squared Error (MSE).

A social highlighter's most useful signal -- which passages a crowd of readers marks -- exists only for documents people have already read. Can the aggregate crowd salience of a document be predicted from its text before its marks accumulate? Prior work on this data found that zero-shot language models recover highlight locations worse than a trivial lead (position) baseline, so we ask whether a model trained on the highlight corpus can beat that baseline. Using a pre-registered ladder of models and a by-document cluster bootstrap, we find a small but robust edge: a logistic ranker over sentence embeddings and positional/contextual features beats the lead baseline by +0.044 average precision (95% CI [+0.029, +0.058]; clears a pre-registered margin delta=0.03 in 97% of resamples, and stable across pipeline re-runs). Two unsupervised extractive baselines (centroid, LexRank-style centrality) lose to lead, and the trained model beats them by +0.108, so the edge is not recovered by generic unsupervised proxies -- it reflects learning from real reader marks. In product terms, precision@3 rises from 0.25 to 0.39 (+55% relative) and the model beats lead on 69% of documents. An ablation attributes the edge to the raw embedding (+0.014) and training augmentation (+0.010), each with a positive CI. The edge is not a temporal-generalization failure, and we find no evidence that content drift or near-duplicate leakage explains it. A standardized regression shows the advantage is governed mainly by document popularity (lower popularity, larger edge) and by label reliability. It nearly vanishes only on the most popular content; there it is the lead baseline that strengthens, not the model that weakens. Because our evaluation conditions on documents that eventually accumulated readers, these results are a retrospective cold-start simulation.

When many people highlight the same document, is the crowd a single consensus, or is it internally structured into reader sub-groups that mark different things -- and is that structure a stable property of a reader or of the document? Building on prior work showing an individual's within-document highlighting signal is a whisper while individuality lives in selection, we ask the group-level question on a co-readership platform using a margin-preserving curveball null. Experiment 1: within a document, readers form strong sub-groups -- pairs agree far beyond what shared salience, mark density, and sentence popularity predict (nearest-neighbour agreement z=+6.3, significant in 88% of documents). Under an eight-block region-preserving null, shared engagement with the same coarse regions of the document accounts for about 40% of this excess; the majority survives as finer reader-specific agreement (z=+3.6, 77% significant). So the within-document crowd is, in a descriptive sense, factional. Experiment 2: is that grouping a stable reader trait? Here we are honest about power. The cross-document split-half reproducibility of a pair's agreement is near zero pooled (+0.078 and 0.000 in two separately drawn samples), and a power calibration shows the test is informative only for pairs that co-read many documents. In the only informative high-overlap subset (k>=4), point estimates are positive but small-sample, imprecise across the separately drawn samples, never significant, and attenuate under the region-preserving null. We therefore leave cross-document stability unresolved: the data is consistent with anything from situational grouping to a weak-to-moderate stable reader trait. The crowd is factional within a document; whether its factions follow the reader across documents is, honestly, beyond our reach.

Recent advances in temporal graph research have redefined traditional static graph concepts such as triangles, motifs, and $k$-cores. Inspired by this, we introduce a novel $(k,\delta)$-truss for temporal graphs, requiring triangles to exist within sufficiently short time windows. The $(k,\delta)$-truss ensures both static and temporal cohesion, while the original $k$-truss is a special case when $\delta = \infty$. To address $(k,\delta)$-truss queries, we propose index-free and index-based approaches. Utilizing the dual containment relation of $(k,\delta)$-trusses, our indexes losslessly compress all $(k,\delta)$-trusses into map or tree structures, significantly reducing space while enabling optimal-time retrieval. To scale to large temporal graphs, we develop two index construction algorithms based on truss decomposition and truss maintenance, respectively, which substantially reduce redundant computations. Moreover, we present techniques for the dynamic maintenance of the proposed indexes. The experimental results demonstrate that index-based approaches process queries in interactive time and outperform the index-free approach by 2$\sim$4 orders of magnitude, while the indexes achieve compression ratios of up to $10^{-4}$ and can be updated efficiently without rebuilding from scratch.

Understanding and predicting how social beliefs evolve in response to events -- from policy changes to scientific breakthroughs -- remains a fundamental challenge in social science. Given LLMs' commonsense knowledge and social intelligence, we ask: Can LLMs model the dynamics of social beliefs following social events? In this work, we introduce the concept of the Social World Model (SWM), a general framework designed to capture how social beliefs evolve in response to major events. SWM learns state-transition functions for social beliefs by mining temporal patterns in social data and optimizing the evidence lower bound, without the need for explicit human annotations linking events to belief shifts, or for expensive census data. To evaluate SWM, we introduce a benchmark, SWM-bench, derived from real-world prediction markets, specifically Kalshi and Polymarket. SWM-bench includes over 12k data points for social belief prediction tasks spanning diverse domains such as politics, finance, and cryptocurrency. Our experimental results show that SWM significantly outperforms time-series foundation models, achieving state-of-the-art results on Kalshi data and demonstrating competitive performance on Polymarket data, while offering interpretable insights into the underlying mechanisms of social belief dynamics.

Every day, millions absorb claims from podcasts and streams that no fact-checker ever sees. Spoken misinformation is built through conversation, where credibility comes not from facts alone but from how claims are framed, reinforced, or left unchallenged across turns. Yet fact-checking has focused on isolated text, leaving dialogue audio under-studied. We introduce MAD2, a new Multi-turn Audio Dialogues benchmark for spoken claim verification, containing 1,000 two-speaker dialogues with 3,368 check-worthy claims and approximately 10 hours of audio, and propose calibrated multimodal fusion of a context-aware audio encoder and a dialogue-aware text model. Across settings, adding dialogue context improves verification, but the gains depend on scenario type. Using only preceding context often matches offline performance, supporting live-moderation settings, and audio contributes most when transcript-based models are destabilized by additional context. Overall, conversational structure matters more for verification than misinformation framing.

For groups without strict hierarchy, collective decisions often emerge through compromise. We develop a second-order network model of collective decision-making using a dissipative Hamiltonian formulation, in which informed agents introduce preferred directions while uninformed participants contribute only direction-free dissipation. We show that under low conflict, the model admits a locally unique, exponentially stable compromise state. Using a structured modular network we further show that as conflict increases the local compromise branch terminates through a saddle-node fold rather than through a smooth mean-field symmetry-breaking transition. Modular polarized states persist on branches that are locally separated from the compromise branch. Direction-free dissipation does not shift the static structural threshold, but it delays escape from the saddle-node ghost and pushes the observable onset of polarization to larger conflicts. Our work identifies a dissipation-mediated mechanism, complementary to connectivity-based accounts, through which uninformed participants stabilize collective behavior in biological and engineered swarms.

The internet, once celebrated as a decentralized public sphere, is increasingly undermined by practices such as generative search and shadow banning, which divert traffic and suppress visibility. Generative search, powered by Retrieval Augmented Generation RAG, synthesizes content into direct answers, bypassing websites and depriving them of traffic and revenue. This threatens the sustainability of independent content creators, small enterprises, and the open web ecosystem. Shadow banning, a practice that intentionally reduces the visibility of social media posts through algorithmic moderation, exacerbates these issues by chilling free expression and limiting transparency and accountability. This article explores these opaque practices through a legal and regulatory lens. The first part examines the rise of generative search, analyzing its technological and legal implications, including copyright infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. It also evaluates potential solutions such as licensing agreements and agentic AI. The second part focuses on shadow banning: algorithmic dissuasion, de-ranking, and the reduction of traffic, with specific attention to Chinas Regulation on Algorithmic Recommendations RAR and the EUs Artificial Intelligence Act AIA. Both frameworks offer partial solutions but fall short of ensuring fairness, transparency, and redress mechanisms. Ultimately, the shift toward centralized control by dominant platforms prioritizes profit and risk management over innovation, fairness, and diversity in online expression. To counteract these trends, regulatory interventions, algorithmic transparency, and equitable frameworks are essential. Without such measures, the internet risks losing its character as a democratized public sphere for free expression and innovation.

Two of the most widely used methods for analysing graph data, Adjacency Spectral Embedding and Laplacian Spectral Embedding, often produce different results when applied to the same graph. Yet the structural reasons behind this disagreement remain incompletely understood. This paper provides an end-to-end account of ASE-LSE latent subspace disagreement. We first prove that the two methods produce identical latent subspaces for every embedding dimension whenever the Laplacian is a scalar multiple of the adjacency matrix, and show that this scalar relationship holds if and only if the graph is either regular or bipartite biregular. This anchor result identifies a sufficient condition for perfect agreement that pins down the floor of the disagreement spectrum and supplies the baseline for the perturbation analysis. We then prove that no maximal-disagreement graph or family of graphs exists: the disagreement is always strictly below its theoretical ceiling, and we exhibit a witness family demonstrating that no finite maximum is attainable, so the disagreement landscape has no maximiser. With both endpoints established, we derive a Regularity Departure Bound whose two terms isolate degree heterogeneity and eigengap as the primary structural factors influencing disagreement in the middle regime. Empirical validation across thousands of simulated graphs confirms the mechanisms predicted by the bound: heterogeneity pushes disagreement up, eigengap suppresses it, and their joint ratio emerges as a unified predictor of ASE-LSE disagreement, suggesting when the two embeddings can be treated as interchangeable and when they cannot.

Online platforms rely on moderation interventions to curb harmful behavior such as hate speech, toxicity, and the spread of mis- and disinformation. Yet research on the effects and possible biases of such interventions faces multiple limitations. For example, existing works frequently focus on single or a few interventions, due to the absence of comprehensive datasets. As a result, researchers must typically collect the necessary data for each new study, which limits opportunities for systematic comparisons. To overcome these challenges, we introduce The Big Ban Theory (TBBT) -- a large dataset of moderation interventions. TBBT covers 25 interventions of varying type, severity, and scope, comprising in total over 339K users and nearly 39M posted messages on Reddit and Voat. For each intervention, we provide standardized metadata and pseudonymized user activity collected three months before and after its enforcement, enabling consistent and comparable analyses of intervention effects. In addition, we provide a descriptive exploratory analysis of the dataset, along with several use cases of how it can support research on content moderation. With this dataset, we aim to support researchers studying the effects of moderation interventions and to promote more systematic, reproducible, and comparable research.

Affective polarization and political sorting drive public antagonism around climate change and other issues at the science-policy nexus. We study cross-domain spillover of incivility in public engagements with climate change and public health on Twitter and Reddit using the COVID-19 period as a case study. We find strong evidence of the signatures of affective polarization surrounding COVID-19 spilling into the climate change domain. Across different social media systems, COVID-19 content is associated with incivility in climate discussions. These patterns of increased antagonism were responsive to pandemic events that made the link between science and public policy more salient. The observed spillover activated along pre-pandemic political cleavages, specifically anti-internationalist populist beliefs, that linked climate policy opposition to vaccine hesitancy. Our findings show how affective polarization in public engagement with science becomes entrenched across policy domains, which has implications for how the public engages with and communicates about issues such as climate change and public health.

We present a novel methodology for analyzing the optimal promotion in the Bass model for the spreading of new products on networks. For general networks with $M$ nodes, the optimal promotion is the solution of $2^M-1$ nonlinearly-coupled boundary-value problems. On structured networks, however, the number of equations can be reduced to a manageable size which is amendable to simulations and analysis. This enables us to gain insight into the effect of the network structure on optimal promotions. We find that the optimal advertising strategy decreases with time, whereas the optimal boosting of peer effects increases from zero and then decreases. In low-degree networks, it is optimal to prioritize advertising over boosting peer effects, but this relation is flipped in high-degree networks. When the planning horizon is finite, the optimal promotion continues until the last minute, as opposed to an infinite planning horizon where the optimal promotion decays to zero. Finally, promotions with short planning horizons can yield an order of magnitude higher increase of profits, compared to those with long planning horizons.