Skip to content

Author

Sophia Ananiadou

3 papers indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Preprint Aug 2026

NTDH: Complex Reasoning for Comprehensive Affective Analysis

Comprehensive affective analysis is challenging for two reasons: it spans heterogeneous prediction tasks with continuous, ordinal, and multi-label outputs, and affective meaning is context-dependent, requiring conflicting cues to be reconciled rather than mapped directly to labels. Existing methods learn this mapping directly and do not model the reconciliation explicitly. We recast the task as a complex-reasoning problem, which yields one output interface across heterogeneous label spaces and a trajectory over which a verifiable reward can be optimised; to our knowledge, this is the first such treatment covering both sentiment and emotion. The obstacle is on the data side: affective reasoning traces must be synthesised, and generic synthesis is misaligned with the targets, tolerances, and phenomena of affect, and discards or leaks its failure cases. We propose NTDH, which addresses these four failures. Naturalisation sets the training answer to the gold label, so it is correct by construction. A Tolerance-aware gate checks each answer against the task's own scoring margin. Domain-aware strategies refine the reasoning using ideas from affective science. Directional Hints report only the type and direction of an error, without exposing the target. We train Qwen3-8B with SFT and then GRPO under the same tolerance used for verification (up to a more permissive construction gate on the multi-label subtask), and a component ablation quantifies the data-quality effect of each part. Using 16,302 training records, about 14x fewer than comparable instruction-tuned systems, the final policy improves over its SFT checkpoint on five of six official-test metrics and achieves the strongest EI-reg result among the compared systems, at a Pearson correlation of 0.862.

Tianlei Zhu, Zhiwei Liu, Yuyan Wang et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

Can LLMs Write Reliable Rubrics? A Meta-Evaluation for Experiment Reproduction

Rubric-based evaluation is a promising approach for assessing open-ended outputs from LLM-based research agents, particularly in paper reproduction, where direct paper-to-repository comparison is prone to hallucination. However, constructing paper-specific rubrics requires substantial expert effort, limiting the scalability of benchmarks such as PaperBench. In this work, we present, to our knowledge, the first systematic meta-evaluation of LLM-generated rubrics for paper reproduction. We reformulate rubrics into a checklist-style format and evaluate four generation settings across two backbone models. We meta-evaluate generated rubrics intrinsically by semantic similarity and extrinsically by score alignment with ground-truth rubrics. Our results show that the augmented settings substantially improves downstream evaluation alignment, with the strongest setting approaching the human baseline, while intrinsic gains are more modest. Further analyses reveal that LLM-generated rubrics are often overly fine-grained, biased toward high scores, and less adaptive to paper domains, highlighting both the affordances and limitations.

Hanhua Hong, Yizhi Li, Jiaoyan Chen et al. · 2 citations
#artificial intelligence Book Open access Aug 2026

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative, and conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

Zhuoran Lu, Weilong Wang, Yang-Yang Yu et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.