Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting. We compare reviews from OpenAI GPT-5.4, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 with human reviews and final decisions for 300 topic-matched ICLR 2026 submissions, equally divided among oral, poster, and rejected papers. Each model reviewed every paper using identical instructions and rating scales after decision information was removed. Our study contributes a cross-provider analysis of three complementary dimensions: alignment with broad and fine-grained decision categories, differences in recommendation-scale usage, and thematic agreement in identified weaknesses. All three LLMs distinguished accepted from rejected papers, but none reproduced the oral versus poster distinction present in human ratings. Scoring patterns were provider-specific: Gemini assigned systematically higher ratings, while OpenAI and Claude were closer to humans for rejected and poster papers but more critical of oral papers. Human and LLM reviews also differed in emphasis, with LLMs more frequently identifying missing baseline comparisons and humans more often raising computational-efficiency concerns. These results show that broad decision alignment does not imply agreement with finer human judgments or reviewing priorities.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03659
AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03581
In organic chemistry papers and patents, molecular structures, reaction schemes, and experimental conditions are often presented as molecular structure depictions, reaction diagrams, and complex tables or figures. Such information is difficult for general-purpose document parsing systems to directly convert into machine-readable data. This limits data production for organic chemistry knowledge base construction and for AI for Chemistry tasks such as reaction prediction, retrosynthesis, condition recommendation, molecular property prediction, and drug molecule design. This report introduces this http URL, a document parsing system for organic chemistry literature integrated into the MinerU online platform. Built on top of MinerU's general document parsing pipeline, this http URL adds five chemistry-specific modules: chemistry relevance filtering, molecular structure detection, molecule identifier extraction, molecular structure recognition, and reaction scheme parsing. Together, these modules convert organic-chemistry-related image regions in documents into a Molecule Summary List and a Reaction Summary List. For molecular structure recognition, this http URL uses CARBON (Complex Atomic Representation and Bonding Object Notation) as its core representation. CARBON enables recognition results to preserve both the visual layout of the original image and complex chemical semantics, while supporting the export of standard downstream formats such as MolFile and SMILES. On the SMILES-evaluable subset of MolRecBench-Wild (N=2,392), this http URL's molecular structure recognition module achieves a SMILES exact-match accuracy of 93.02%, outperforming the best evaluated comparison system, GPT-5.6-Sol (74.87%), by 18.15 percentage points. The system has been integrated into the MinerU online platform and is available at this https URL .
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03525
Active learning (AL) promises to reduce the cost of medical imaging projects by lowering the number of clinical labels required. However, practical deployment requires committing to a sampling strategy before the full annotation budget is spent, and choosing the wrong strategy can increase rather than decrease costs. We propose Active-Learning Deployment Advisor (ALDA), a deployment-oriented framework for AL method selection under clinical performance constraints. Given a short pilot phase, ALDA fits a parametric learning-curve model to each candidate strategy, estimates whether that strategy is expected to reach a required clinical performance target, and predicts the number of expert annotations needed to do so. In addition to absolute annotation cost, ALDA introduces a deployment window that quantifies the sensitivity of this cost estimate to uncertainty in the clinical threshold. The final recommendation follows a risk-aware rule: among strategies with near-optimal predicted cost, ALDA prefers the strategy with the narrowest deployment window, the most robust to threshold revisions. Experiments on four medical imaging classification domains show that ALDA predicts the deployment-optimal method from a pilot of 15-30% of the intended budget and reduces annotation costs by up to 82% compared with a poor strategy choice. Rather than introducing a new sampling heuristic, ALDA provides a practical decision layer that answers a deployment-critical question: how many labels are enough?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03511
Neuro-oncology decisions require coordinated interpretation of serial MRI, pathology, molecular markers, treatment history, performance status, and evolving guidelines. We present TumorBoard, a multi-agent decision-support system built around a shared longitudinal case state and an auditable claim-evidence ledger. Specialist agents for radiology, neuropathology, molecular diagnosis, guidelines, and therapy planning produce atomic claims with provenance. An adversarial critic exposes contradictions, and a safety governor releases, qualifies, or defers recommendations according to evidence sufficiency and temporal validity. On a 360-case hidden benchmark at a matched token budget, TumorBoard achieved an action F1 of 0.772 and evidence entailment of 0.914. It exceeded the strongest typed-council baseline by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.7, adjusted p = 0.0012), while recommendation-to-evidence coverage reached 0.927. Under evidence deletion, the system deferred 84.2% of unsafe cases and limited harmful recommendations to 5.8%. The safety governor reduced harmful release by 7.8 percentage points at a false-deferral cost of 4.3 percentage points. Ablation studies of the ledger, critic, and governor produced the predicted failure patterns, establishing structured coordination as the source of the measured multi-agent advantage.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03190
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into medical decision-making, yet its liability implications remain complex, particularly when physicians differ in diagnostic skills and their quality is unobservable. This paper develops a principal-agent model in which a social planner designs medical liability to regulate a physician with private quality information who chooses between a standard treatment, a personalized judgment-based treatment, or following an imperfect AI recommendation. Our analysis yields several novel insights. First, we show that the optimal mechanism under asymmetric information is surprisingly simple: a uniform, one-size-fits-all liability level for all physician types who deviate from the standard of care. Despite physician heterogeneity, this simple policy often achieves the full-information first-best outcome, particularly when standard care is reliable or AI is highly accurate. Second, the relationship between AI accuracy and optimal liability is non-monotonic. Contrary to common intuition, better AI does not always imply more relaxed liability. As AI accuracy increases, the optimal liability either decreases monotonically or follows an inverted-U pattern, depending on the uncertainty of the standard treatment. Third, asymmetric information does not universally reduce social welfare. Welfare loss arises only when standard care is unreliable and AI accuracy is too low; even then, its magnitude follows an inverted U-shape, initially increasing as AI complicates the regulatory problem, but declining as more accurate AI helps mitigate it. Finally, we find that information asymmetry is a double-edged sword in the presence of AI, and greater transparency does not benefit all stakeholders equally.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03114
Merchant risk control at large payment platforms screens tens of millions of merchants daily, where false positives harm legitimate merchants and false negatives leave harmful activity undetected. The hardest cases require jointly understanding a merchant's textual profile and long behavioral sequence. Large language models (LLMs) excel at text but cannot natively model such sequences, while adapting them often causes catastrophic forgetting. We present SeqLLM, a framework that adds behavioral-sequence modeling to a pretrained LLM while preserving its language ability. SeqLLM combines three components: a compact discrete vocabulary that represents behavioral events as native tokens; a lightweight projector, trained with a two-stage alignment curriculum, that grounds these tokens in the LLM's semantic space; and prefix-guided capability injection, which acquires sequence-modeling ability through task-prefixed supervised fine-tuning rather than continual pre-training. SeqLLM is deployed at WeChat Pay, screening millions of merchants daily. Against the production DeepSeek-based LLM baseline, it raises screening precision from 92.0% to 97.5%. Its pretrained behavior-token embeddings also improve Precision@Top-0.01% by 26.8 percentage points in a production fraud detector serving billion-scale transaction traffic. Beyond payments, SeqLLM achieves state-of-the-art results on public recommendation benchmarks. On MovieLens and Amazon, it surpasses the strong User-LLM baseline by up to 32% relative Recall@5 while retaining markedly stronger language ability. On RecIF, it improves Pass@32 by 14.2% over the full OneRec-8B pipeline using only one-fifth of its GPU-days.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03063
Applying a valid medication-safety rule when its patient-specific conditions are not met can produce an incorrect decision. Existing medical evaluations largely use isolated and fixed scenarios. A model may therefore answer correctly by recalling a drug-risk association without showing that it used patient information to decide whether the rule applies. To address this gap, we introduce MedPIC-Bench, a benchmark of source-verifiable recommendations and expert-validated questions for patient-specific medication-safety reasoning. It combines guideline-following questions with paired counterfactual questions in which a controlled change in patient information changes whether a rule applies. The benchmark contains 467 questions annotated along six clinical and reasoning dimensions. Across 28 medical-specific, general, and proprietary LLMs, every model performs worse on counterfactual questions, with mean accuracy falling from 63.6\% to 45.1\%. Models perform well when an explicit patient attribute directly signals a familiar contraindication, but struggle when patient information must narrow or withdraw a safety warning. Model rationales often acknowledge the changed patient information, yet the final answers retain the previous safety judgment. This vulnerability persists among medical-specific LLMs, whose average CF performance trails that of general LLMs. MedPIC-Bench therefore makes conditional rule application measurable and highlights the limitations of static medication-safety accuracy for assessing patient-specific reliability.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03028
Conversational assistants increasingly recommend follow-up edits to help users continue a task. Existing systems primarily target text-only interactions, leaving image-creation conversations underexplored. In image-creation tasks, useful follow-up edit suggestions must reflect user preferences, offer diverse directions, and remain executable on the current image. We collected 100,000 real multi-turn image-creation conversation samples from Qwen App and found that 80.1% are image-dependent, underscoring the need for multimodal recommendation. We address this setting with a three-stage framework. In Stage 1, we use real online data to build a human-reviewed table of appropriate follow-up editing intents, then create SFT targets and fine-tune a multimodal policy. In Stage 2, to align rule-guided SFT suggestions with actual user choices, we use user click feedback to optimize the policy through multi-objective reinforcement learning. In Stage 3, to reduce visual inconsistencies between suggested edits and the current image, we introduce a visual verifier as additional training supervision. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms baselines on both automatic and human evaluations. In a live user-randomized A/B test with millions of users, our final framework reduces visual inconsistency from 3.7% to 0.9%. Furthermore, it significantly improves recommendation CTR by 32.70%, image take-away rate by 16.32%, and average conversation turns per user by 39.90% (all p<0.05).
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07565
Multimodal representation learning is a cornerstone of modern AI. By encoding multimodal queries and targets into vectors, it powers industrial search and recommendation and underpins modern agents. Real-world platforms with complex modalities and massive-scale content, such as Douyin, Xiaohongshu, and YouTube, demand both efficiency under billion-scale indexing and fine-grained discrimination for hard matching. Existing MLLM embedding models rarely satisfy both. Contrastive models are efficient but rely on pair-level supervision too coarse for fine-grained distinctions, while CoT-based models improve discrimination through explicit generation impractical to serve online. We present Douyin Multimodal Embedding (DME), a model trained in two stages to combine both strengths. Stage 1 performs large-scale contrastive pre-training that establishes a unified multimodal embedding space with broad modality and task coverage. Stage 2 supplements semantic sufficiency, the property that an embedding is grounded in retrieval-relevant evidence and preserves fine-grained counterpart-side semantics, via two mechanisms. Evidence-Grounded Typed Latent Reasoning organizes retrieval evidence through hidden-space latent reasoning, and Cross-Conditional Reconstruction enforces counterpart-side semantics through cross-directional autoregressive reconstruction. Both act only during training and add only marginal query-side overhead, so DME serves as efficiently as a standard contrastive encoder. On MMEB-v2, DME reaches state-of-the-art results at comparable scales for its 2B and 9B variants (74.8 and 78.4), with especially strong video and visual-document tasks. In production, DME delivers a 2.92% relative gain on Douyin's in-house offline evaluation set, is deployed across Douyin scenarios such as generative, image, and AI search, and yields a 0.1% Lifetime (LT) gain in online A/B testing on Douyin search.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02148
Recent advances in large language models and agent-based recommendation frameworks have introduced new opportunities for more flexible and context-aware recommendation. However, existing methods still largely rely on semantic matching, end-to-end generation, or loosely structured agent workflows, without explicitly modeling how user preferences are processed and translated into final decisions. To address this limitation, we propose CARA, a cognitively inspired recommendation framework that formulates recommendation as a structured decision-making process. The core intuition of CARA is that user decisions are jointly shaped by two complementary mechanisms: intuitive affective preference and deliberate rational evaluation. Accordingly, CARA organizes recommendation into two coordinated stages: candidate filtering, which narrows the search space based on coarse-grained preference constraints, and dual-perspective decision modeling, which captures recommendation decisions through affective and rational judgment. We further introduce a boundary-aware KTO strategy that prioritizes instructions the model can solve occasionally but not consistently, thereby increasing the density of informative preference signals. Extensive experiments on three Amazon Reviews domains show that CARA achieves the best performance on most evaluation metrics, with relative improvements of up to 10.15% over the baseline.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16919
Deploying LLM agents into industrial recommender operations exposes a three-way tension we frame as the autonomy-determinism-efficiency trilemma: general autonomy (interpreting operator intent, generating glue code zero-shot), industrial determinism (schema-conforming feature extraction, non-crashing A/B, zero compliance-path hallucination), and end-to-end efficiency. Any two can be maximized against the third. We present RecSys Factory, an LLM-agent platform deployed for 78 days across three heterogeneous Tencent recommender business lines. The design principle is autonomy at decision points, not over pipelines, made concrete through three deconstructions that each discharge one vertex of the trilemma. Runtime is deconstructed into three host-emitted event sources (Claude Code Stop hooks, corporate-IM webhooks, workflow scheduler APIs): the platform carries no long-running daemon during the wait phase and consumes zero CPU during the 94% of wall-clock spent waiting on Spark or GPU jobs. Capability is deconstructed into a 29-file skill ecosystem (8,971 lines of this http URL) whose per-skill pitfall tables mechanically compile into a 400-entry PitfallStore, confining autonomy to bounded typed decision surfaces inside pre-committed pipelines. Deployment spans three business lines with disjoint label semantics, A/B layer topologies, and operator personas; an onboarding-time compression is observed on two of the three and is reported as a case-study observation, not a generalization claim, and not measured against a controlled pre-platform baseline. The human is retained at the diagnostic-versus-execution boundary via a human-in-the-loop card protocol, deployed as an audit-trail primitive (schema-validated, idempotent, replayable) and reported from an 8-day 16-run pilot. Across the 78-day window the platform recorded 1,624 CLI-tool dispatches at a 78.6% aggregate success rate.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11241
Optimizing modern recommender models still depends heavily on engineers manually iterating over architectural, objective, and training-strategy changes. While LLM-based agents can automate this trial-and-error process, allowing the LLM to both select modification directions and generate concrete hypotheses often leads to unstable search under limited experiment budgets. Inspired by the above challenge, we propose RecHarness, a Bandit-Routed Agentic Harness for automated recommender model optimization. RecHarness separates the optimization process into two steps: a bandit router selects the next modification direction according to historical validation feedback, while the LLM generates a concrete optimization hypothesis and executable code edit within the selected direction. To sustain long-horizon exploration, RecHarness uses a jump-basin mechanism to activate a structural-jump arm when local edits stagnate. Across multiple recommendation tasks, datasets, and model backbones, RecHarness achieves more stable performance improvements and uses limited trial budgets more effectively than LLM-reasoning search. During a 7-day online A/B test on a large-scale short-video advertising platform, the selected candidate improves ADVV by 2.084%, Revenue by 0.534%, and Exposure by 0.559%. Code is available at this https URL.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29241
Effective disaster risk communication is a foundational humanitarian challenge, yet current emergency infrastructure fails to meet the needs of individuals with access and functional needs, including hard-of-hearing individuals, pregnant women, mothers with toddlers, and elderly individuals with dementia. Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MM-LLMs), demonstrate powerful capabilities to serve diverse users across text, audio, image, and video modalities within a single unified system, such as a chatbot. However, their suitability for deployment rests on a property that receives limited scrutiny, i.e., whether these systems produce consistent, actionable outputs regardless of the modality through which a user communicates. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis to understand the status of open-weight MM-LLMs using real emergency alert scenarios across four different vulnerable personas. These state-of-the-art (SOTA) models are evaluated on consistency of responses across text and audio modalities when the same task scenario is given. Findings indicate that no model achieves reliable consistency across modalities, and that performance gaps are heightened for personas with access needs, introducing modality-dependent inequity that undermines the humanitarian value of these systems. These results inform concrete design recommendations for building equitable, trustworthy, and inclusive AI tools for disaster risk communication.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14651
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities, motivating their adoption as backbones for foundation recommendation models (FRMs). Existing approaches typically enhance recommendation with explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) under the Think-then-Answer paradigm. However, generating lengthy rationales introduces substantial inference overhead, while fixed CoT templates struggle to model diverse, dynamic, and context-dependent user interests. We propose WhisperRec, an efficient latent reasoning framework for FRMs. WhisperRec compresses teacher-generated CoT into learnable latent reasoning tokens, enabling a Latent-Reason-then-Answer paradigm that performs reasoning in latent space without producing verbose rationales. This design retains decision-relevant reasoning information while avoiding the latency bottleneck of autoregressive rationale generation. Specifically, it first introduces Multi-View Adaptive CoT (MV-ACoT) to construct diverse, high-quality supervision from complementary perspectives on user interests. MV-ACoT also adapts reasoning complexity to each instance, applying lightweight analysis to clear cases and targeted multi-factor reasoning to challenging ones. Building on a pre-trained FRM, WhisperRec then employs a three-stage Latent Reasoning Alignment procedure to progressively internalize teacher CoT into latent representations. Finally, curriculum-based post-training activates latent-token reasoning for downstream recommendation while preserving standard recommendation capability. Experiments on an industrial-scale Kuaishou dataset and the public Kuaishou LLM-Rec benchmark show that WhisperRec consistently outperforms explicit-CoT methods and conventional baselines. Compared with explicit CoT Think and No-Think variants, WhisperRec improves SID@64 by 17.44% and 9.33%, respectively, and achieves over 10x higher online inference throughput.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26621
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve users whose expectations are shaped by their cultural context, yet most cultural evaluations test what a model knows rather than how it behaves when giving open-ended recommendations, opinions, and guidance. We introduce AraBehave: 1,623 culturally grounded, open-ended Arabic prompts with 29,214 cultural-appropriateness judgments from native speakers across several Arab regions, plus a scoring model whose predictions correlate strongly with human judgments on unseen systems (Pearson r=0.74). Evaluating three Arabic-centric and three frontier LLMs, we find that cultural appropriateness is not a single capability but decomposes into two largely independent components: normative stance and grounded cultural accuracy. The best general-purpose and best Arabic-centric models score identically (3.84 vs. 3.83 of 5) yet almost never fail for the same reason: general-purpose models exhibit strong factual grounding but a culturally inappropriate normative stance, being penalized for secular framing and false balance on culturally settled matters (28--33% of their low-score rationales), while the best Arabic-centric model adopts the expected stance but is penalized for fabricated hadith and misquoted verses (29%). Stance is cheap and fragile: one sentence of cultural instruction lifts Gemini to 4.57, above every Arabic-specialized model. Conversely, a generic ``answer clearly and objectively'' prompt costs Allam-7B 0.68 points, while asking the same questions in English lowers scores for every model but one. Grounding instead tracks scale and Arabic alignment data, and disappears when culturally aware instruction tuning is replaced by a culture-neutral corpus. General safety benchmarks see none of this: they saturate above 89 while cultural scores span 2.71-3.84. We will release the benchmark, annotations, and the scoring model.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16006
Recent handwritten text generators can reproduce a writer's style from publicly available references, posing risks of document forgery and identity misuse. An attacker may use a publicly available handwritten note or signature sample to generate forged recommendation letters or authorization forms, leading to document fraud, identity misuse, and misleading decisions. However, existing protections against unauthorized image editing or synthesis transfer poorly to handwriting style mimicry. Designed for natural images with complex backgrounds, they often optimize perturbations over the whole image. For sparse handwriting images, such global perturbations become conspicuous in blank background regions and largely degrade the visual quality. In this work, we propose InkShield, a proactive writing-style defense that protects reference images before release. InkShield selects a decoy writer to define a style-displacement direction, optimizes perturbations with a frozen handwriting-generation surrogate, and confines them to ink-stroke edges to avoid conspicuous background artifacts. On IAM, the average Top-1/Top-5 rates at which generated samples are retrieved as the target writer by two independent writer evaluators decrease from 11.94%/36.52% to 2.03%/8.79%. Meanwhile, the protected references remain visually close to the originals (LPIPS 0.0078), and the generated text remains readable. InkShield also exhibits transferability to other handwriting generators. Overall, InkShield provides practical protection against unauthorized handwriting style mimicry.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26976
In many domains such as Palliative Care, Credit Assignment and Recommender Systems, predictions may causally influence the outcomes they predict. This phenomena is known as Outcome Performativity. This paper formalises an approach for detecting Outcome Performativity using prediction intervention called Outcome Performativity A/B Detection (OPAB). OPAB enables the detection of Outcome Performativity by assessing the dissimilarity in outcome distributions produced by different predictions groups (interventions). If that dissimilarity is significant, Outcome Performativity is detected. We derive sample complexity bounds for OPAB under various Outcome Performative assumption classes which we empirically validate. Results show that detecting Outcome Performativity using OPAB is achievable in numerous cases. Results also show the presence of regions of indistinguishability which describe settings where the allotted number of interventions are insufficient for detecting Outcome Performativity. The results of which have broader practical implications for the detectability of Outcome Performativity in settings where samples are scarce, cost-prohibitive or potentially unethical to obtain. The paper concludes with a case study on the efficacy of OPAB on the Open Bandits dataset, and provides directions for future work.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26908
PID tuning for chemical processes commonly relies on identified process models, whereas plant engineers often retune loops iteratively by observing responses, diagnosing deficiencies, adjusting gains, and validating the result. This work formalizes this engineer-like workflow in a language-model-assisted PID tuning framework applicable to both large and small language models (LLMs/SLMs). Hosted LLMs receive closed-loop response features, control-engineering diagnoses, tuning preferences, and internal model control (IMC)-based demonstrations to generate and iteratively correct PID gains under common acceptance criteria. For local deployment, Qwen3-0.6B is adapted through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with simulation-verified IMC targets and physics-informed group relative policy optimization (PI-GRPO) with non-compensable stability and performance rewards. On 100 first-order plus dead time (FOPDT) and 100 second-order plus dead time (SOPDT) test cases, hosted LLMs (DeepSeek-V4-Flash and Qwen3.7-Plus) achieve final success rates of 75-89% and 77-79%, respectively. As for Qwen3-0.6B, supervised fine-tuning raises first-recommendation success to 86.5%, and PI-GRPO further increases it to 94.0%, primarily improving first-attempt reliability and stability margins.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26594
Recommender systems mediate everyday consumption, offering a promising channel for encouraging sustainable choices. Prior research shows that explanations influence users' perceptions of recommendations and can support more informed decisions. We argue that explanations can also serve as behavioral nudges by foregrounding sustainability information at the moment of choice. This study investigates how different behavioral framings of sustainability information in recommendation explanations affect user choices and perceptions. Using generative AI, we generate sustainability-aware explanations by drawing on nudge theory and validate them through human evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge audits. Building on this foundation, we conduct two randomized studies ($N = 529$) in a low involvement domain (instant coffee) and a high involvement domain (hotel bookings), in which participants choose among preference matched recommendations accompanied by these explanations. Our results show that, across both domains, merely disclosing sustainability information in explanations does not change choices, whereas framing that information or invoking a descriptive social norm significantly increases sustainable selections and eases decision-making. Notably, perception and behavior diverge, as plain disclosure improves explanation evaluations without translating into more sustainable selection behavior. Our work demonstrates how LLMs can generate theory-grounded explanations at scale, pointing toward practical explanation-based interventions for social good. We conclude by discussing implications for adaptive explanation design with generative AI.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25726