Papers for
customer service ai teams
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Content moderation systems improve by spotting disagreement patterns
Knowing When to Escalate: Disagreement Patterns for Uncertainty-Aware Content Moderation
Abstract: Agentic content-moderation systems increasingly rely on collective judgments from LLM agents, while aggregation methods commonly treat inter-agent disagreement as a reliability problem to be removed through consensus or voting. This framing is inappropriate for value-laden tasks, where disagreement may reflect irreducible value pluralism - a distinction standard uncertainty decompositions cannot recover, since they operate on output distributions and discard the reasoning behind each judgment. We propose Reasoning Trace Divergence Analysis (RTDA), which embeds model-generated justifications from perspective-differentiated agents and classifies each case by justification similarity and conclusion agreement. The resulting four-state taxonomy isolates convergent disagreement, where agents reasoning similarly but concluding differently, as a candidate signature of value-laden conflict. On 1,000 items from the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, this structural signal predicts human annotator disagreement better than magnitude-only and output-only baselines. We contribute a design principle: condition human escalation on the structure of disagreement, not its magnitude alone, with RTDA serving as a post-processing layer for systems that already generate reasoning traces.
Chinese large language models struggle to avoid echoing false beliefs
Evaluating Sycophancy in Chinese Large Language Models on Factual Questions Derived from Online Search Queries
Abstract: As large language models increasingly mediate information access, factually accurate and independent answers are critical. However, these models can exhibit sycophancy by aligning their responses with users' stated beliefs even when those beliefs are incorrect, potentially presenting misinformation as independently verified and reinforcing users' confidence in false claims. Prior work leaves unresolved whether introducing user beliefs causes correct responses to become incorrect or uncertain, or causes uncertain responses to become belief-aligned incorrect answers. It also remains unclear whether anti-sycophancy interventions preserve or restore factual accuracy or merely shift responses toward uncertainty. We analyze factual sycophancy in Chinese-language information seeking using yes/no fact-checking questions. Our analysis covers 364,941 responses from three frontier Chinese-based LLMs (DeepSeek, Qwen, and Doubao) to 12,165 factual questions derived from real-world Chinese search queries. We evaluate the models with and without reasoning across baseline, belief-conditioned, and anti-sycophancy prompting, tracing matched shifts among correct, incorrect, and uncertain responses. Under incorrect user beliefs, we distinguish belief-aligned errors from losses of factual confidence, in which initially correct answers become uncertain. Patterns vary across models and reasoning settings: reasoning is not a consistent safeguard, and anti-sycophancy instructions can reduce incorrect agreement while increasing uncertainty. In Chinese-language factual question answering, avoiding agreement with false beliefs is therefore not equivalent to preserving factual accuracy, highlighting the value of transition-level evaluation. Such behavior may undermine the reliability of LLM-mediated information access by reinforcing misinformation or weakening users' confidence in factually correct answers.