Detoxifying Toxic Communication: A Design Science Approach to Responsible AI

Toxic language in digital workplaces such as pejoratives, sarcasm, condescension, and subtle incivility can erode trust, morale, and collaboration. Existing moderation tools primarily delete or block harmful messages, disrupting communication and offering no constructive resolution. This study adopts a Design Science Research approach to create a responsible AI artifact that detects and detoxifies toxic communication. The artifact integrates fine-tuned transformer-based classifiers (DistilBERT, DistilRoBERTa) with a generative detoxification model (mT0-XL-Detox-ORPO) that rewrites toxic text into semantically equivalent, non-offensive paraphrases. Technical evaluation demonstrates high accuracy in toxicity detection and strong semantic preservation in rewritten messages, supporting conversation continuity while reinforcing respectful discourse. The paper contributes design principles for responsible AI moderation that prioritize meaning preservation and fairness.

Are We Evaluating Knowledge or Phrasing? Mitigating MCQA Sensitivity with ParaEval

Multiple-choice (MCQA) benchmarks are the standard for evaluating pretrained large language models, but their reliance on log-likelihood scoring makes them unreliable. Specifically, standard scores are highly sensitive to the exact phrasing (surface form) of the answers, conflating a model's familiarity with a specific phrase with its actual capability. We demonstrate this flaw using a controlled testbed of 1B-8B models trained on the same knowledge. Despite having identical knowledge, standard metrics falsely report a performance gap of over 2 points. To solve this, we propose ParaEval, an evaluation framework that queries models using multiple paraphrases per answer option. By scoring each model based on its most favorable phrasing, ParaEval successfully reduces the false performance gap to below 1 point. We confirm that these evaluation artifacts, and the improvements from ParaEval, persist in frontier 70B and 120B open-source models. Ultimately, ParaEval provides a robust and efficient way to evaluate true underlying capability rather than surface-form familiarity.

From `May' to `Is': Certainty Distortion in Language Model Rewriting

Humans increasingly turn to Language Models (LMs) in ways that shape beliefs and drive decisions, including discussing, rewriting, and summarizing information from scientific articles, news, and medical reports. However, in these domains, where how confidently a claim is expressed matters, little is known about whether LMs faithfully preserve it. In this work, we investigate certainty distortion in LMs, defined as meaningful changes in expressed certainty when semantic content is preserved. We propose an LM-based evaluation metric that is consistent with population-level judgments of certainty. Using this metric, we characterize certainty distortion across different sizes and families of models in the context of scientific and medical communication tasks. Our results show that certainty distortion affects up to 75\% of LM outputs and is systematically asymmetric in rewriting tasks with most LMs being 1.5-2$\times$ more likely to increase the expressed certainty than to decrease it. These effects can compound over repeated paraphrasing: in the medical domain, claude-haiku-4-5 increases certainty of 20\% examples after a single iteration, increasing to 40\% after five iterations. Prompt-based interventions reduce overall certainty distortion but do not eliminate it. Together, these findings reveal a general bias toward inflating expressed certainty, with direct implications for users who rely on LMs in high-stakes domains.