Prove2Me: An Open Collaborative Platform for Scaling Math Formalization

Proof assistants such as Lean 4 promise the paradigm of formally verified mathematics, but large-scale formalization projects have faced major barriers to entry, including the need for expertise in formal verification (as well as the underlying mathematics) and the significant time required for writing formal proofs. AI coding agents have dramatically reduced these barriers; human users can now use natural language to prompt agents to write complex proofs in Lean. This opens up the intriguing possibility of internet-scale mathematical collaboration involving both humans and AI agents, where correctness is machine-checked. To realize this possibility, we introduce Prove2Me (https://prove2.me), an open collaborative platform for formalizing mathematics. Users launch formalization "missions", to which AI agents contribute formal proofs toward completion. We designed mechanisms and a specialized harness in Prove2Me that enable large-scale collaboration so that agents can build on one another's work and freely reuse existing results. In doing so, Prove2Me aims to turn math formalization into a scalable, crowd-sourced effort open to anyone with an agent.

Dual-Primal Graph VAEs for Noisy Label Aggregation

Inferring the ground-truth from noisy crowdsourced labels is an important theoretical and practical problem. Neural network-based methods offer an alternative to classical Bayesian models which require specifying a family of generative models used for inference. However, current models either still rely on fairly simple generative models for inference or require pseudo-labels or synthetic data to train the aggregate classifier. We propose a graph VAE architecture in which the decoder and encoder use GAT-based message passing on the adjacency graph of a crowdsourced dataset and its dual, respectively. The ground-truth labels are treated as latent variables, enabling unsupervised representation learning without needing to train a separate classifier. We show our model achieves state of the art performance on crowdsourcing benchmarks. We then demonstrate the generality of our approach by showing how the original crowdsourcing graph can be augmented to incorporate side information such as representations from neural network classifiers trained on the noisy labels to substantially boost their classification performance at test time.

Finding the Signal in the Spam: Jointly Learning Rewards and Worker Reliability from Pairwise Comparisons

The problem of learning from pairwise comparisons has been widely studied across many domains such as recommendation systems, social choice, and more recently, fine-tuning large language models. In this problem, the goal is to learn item rewards based on pairwise comparisons between them. In many scenarios, these comparisons are elicited from crowdworkers using platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, Scale AI, etc. However, crowdworkers are often unreliable due to limited domain knowledge or revenue-maximizing (spamming) behavior. In this work, our goal is to understand whether worker reliability (competency) can be learned jointly with item rewards. To this end, we adopt the Boltzmann-rational model for pairwise comparisons, which extends the Bradley-Terry-Luce model by incorporating worker competencies. We derive an EM-based algorithm for learning under this model by introducing Polya-Gamma latent variables to transform the logistic likelihood into a conditionally Gaussian form, enabling tractable optimization and leading to a simplified $Q$ function in the E-step of the algorithm. This technique allows us to reduce our formulation to a matrix sensing problem, using which we establish theoretical convergence guarantees for our algorithm. We conduct extensive experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets. These experiments demonstrate the advantages of using our algorithm over several baselines and confirm its strong robustness to both spammers and adversarial workers, highlighting its practical effectiveness in realistic crowdsourcing and reward learning settings. The code and data is publicly available at https://github.com/KaustubhShejole/BoRa_EM.

Robust Reputation-Driven Crowdsourced Federated Learning

Crowdsourced Federated Learning (CrowdFL) extends traditional federated learning by enabling open and heterogeneous participation through a crowdsourcing paradigm. In this setting, reputation-driven incentive mechanisms are commonly employed to guide worker selection and enhance trustworthiness. While such approaches improve participant reliability, existing frameworks largely overlook the quantification of their robustness against stealthy adversaries, particularly those capable of evading standard detection mechanisms. To fill this gap, this paper proposes R2CFL, a robust reputation-driven CrowdFL framework. R2CFL introduces a robust reputation model coupled with a nearest neighbor mixing (R2-NNM) defense mechanism that links reputation evolution with the filtering of updates during aggregation. The proposed mechanism prevents stealthy attackers from gradually accumulating trust and influencing future tasks. Experimental results demonstrate that R2-NNM matches or surpasses state-of-the-art Byzantine-robust and backdoor defense mechanisms against adaptive attackers. Furthermore, when integrated with existing detect-and-filter defenses, the proposed reputation model faithfully captures the statistical robustness of the underlying defense by producing reputation scores that closely reflect its true positive and false positive characteristics.

Whose Judgments Count? Representation Gaps in Crowdsourced Content Moderation Produce Unequal Protection from Perceived Toxicity

Content moderation is a central form of digital governance, yet people disagree over what content should be removed from shared online spaces. While platforms aggregate human judgments to build moderation systems, it remains unclear how this process shapes which users are protected from content they perceive as toxic. We address this gap by combining large-scale judgment data with counterfactual simulations that trace how the demographic composition of moderator pools shapes the distribution of protection across users. Applying this framework to removal judgments from 16,221 U.S. respondents evaluating 102,463 comments from Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan, we find demographic heterogeneities in moderation demand. We further reveal a consistent pattern of in-group protection: reductions in perceived toxicity accrue disproportionately to users who share the demographic identities of the moderator pool. Crucially, moderator pools that mirror the demographic composition of self-identified moderators on Prolific widen these disparities relative to a nationally representative baseline, while even fully representative pools fail to ensure equal protection: Black and LGB users remain underprotected unless they are represented well beyond their population share. These findings show that unequal protection from perceived toxicity can arise structurally from the aggregation of stratified removal standards, making the demographic composition of moderation inputs a key determinant of who is protected online.

A Model for Imbalanced Label Aggregation: A Focus on Minority-Class Detection

We study imbalanced crowdsourcing with a focus on class-dependent annotator accuracy, a setting that, to the best of our knowledge, remains relatively underexplored despite its importance in real-world inspection systems where the labels of greatest operational importance are also the rarest ones. In this setting, annotators may be reliable on both classes, unreliable on both classes, majority-class specialists, or minority-class specialists. Existing models only partially address this problem: they either capture class-dependent errors but ignore item difficulty, or they model item difficulty without capturing class-dependent errors. To fill this gap for imbalanced datasets in crowdsourcing, we introduce a generative aggregation model combining item difficulty with class-dependent annotator competence. The model allows both annotator abilities and item difficulties to vary across classes. We then revisit Condorcet's Jury Theorem in the class-imbalanced setting. We also show that majority voting asymptotically preserves the underlying class proportion. We evaluate our model on $33$ real-world crowdsourcing datasets, covering multiclass tasks such as images and text, as well as two large-scale regimes: large-scale annotation datasets, with many annotations per item, and large-scale item datasets, with a large number of annotated instances. Across these diverse settings, our model consistently achieves the highest minority recall while remaining competitive in balanced accuracy, making it particularly relevant when rare-label recovery is the primary objective.

AHEAD: Advancing Multi-Class Label Aggregation with Interpretable Cross-Annotator Modeling

Crowdsourced labeling provides valuable labeled data for domains across natural language processing, computer vision, and video. Label aggregation aims to infer latent true labels from noisy and biased annotations, with the key lying in annotator reliability estimation. Despite promising progress, existing approaches struggle with one real-world bottleneck: most individual annotators label only a small subset of tasks, making accurate annotator estimation highly intractable. In this paper, we focus on the considerably more challenging multi-class label aggregation and propose AHEAD (cross-Annotator learning and High-confidEnce Annotator-guideD label aggregation), a cross-annotator learning framework that advances annotator reliability estimation by leveraging the population-level data. Specifically, AHEAD first learns high-dimensional cross-annotator contexts via a graph neural network, deriving multi-view, complementary annotator embeddings by aggregating individual-level annotator features with contextual information. These embeddings are then decoded into interpretable annotator-specific confusion matrices to fit the observed labels. We formulate a composite objective incorporating high-confidence annotators to alleviate the unsupervised training issues faced by prior models. Experiments on 10 real-world datasets spanning NLP, CV, Video, and Audio show that AHEAD substantially improves label accuracy, increasing average accuracy from 68.75% to 73.23%, with gains of up to 14.9% in the best case. Meanwhile, scalability experiments on the largest dataset further demonstrate the overall superiority of our method.

How Human Feedback Shapes AI-generated Community Notes

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

auto-psych: Automating the science of mind using agent-driven theory discovery and experimentation

AI-based scientific automation is increasingly possible by using agents to generate hypotheses, design experiments, and analyze data. Data collection is a major bottleneck in this pipeline, however. Psychology, and computational cognitive science in particular, is well-positioned to benefit from AI experimentation because theories are often represented as code and crowdsourcing platforms enable programmatic human data collection at scale. Here, we apply automated discovery techniques to the project of generating theories in computational cognitive science, with an agent-based system collecting human data independently through crowdsourced survey experiments. As a testbed, we use a classic case study from cognitive psychology: judging which sequences of coin flips seem subjectively more random. Our system, auto-psych, uses nested agent-based discovery loops to generate explanatory theories of human behavior. The inner loop conjectures, fits, and critiques probabilistic cognitive models; the outer loop designs experiments to test these models, launches them online, and analyzes the data. This system can quickly and reliably recover ground-truth theories from synthetic data via systematic experimentation, but the nested structure is critical to model performance. Further, in three independent sequences of human experiments, the system finds theories that fit the data better than theories generated from the scientific literature. This work thus demonstrates the feasibility of automated data collection and theory discovery in computational cognitive science.

Can Crowdsourcing Survive the LLM Era? A Community Survey on Human Data Collection

The widespread use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as writing tools challenges the validity of crowdsourced data, as crowdworkers may outsource tasks to models. To better understand how this is addressed, we surveyed 155 researchers in NLP and related disciplines about their experiences and opinions on collecting free-text responses via crowdsourcing. This paper provides an overview of practitioners' challenges, mitigation strategies, and the foreseen implications on data quality. 44% of respondents reported observing LLM usage in their crowdsourced data. While 93% of them had anticipated this, half were unsure what precautions to take. The most prevalent detection strategies are distinctive textual style patterns and unusually fast completion times. Overall, survey responses show that the research community is aware of the problem and taking measures, but existing efforts remain insufficient to fully address it. Finally, we derive a set of considerations to guide future crowdsourced free-text data collection in the era of LLMs.

Beyond Seeing Is Believing: On Crowdsourced Detection of Audiovisual Deepfakes

Deepfakes are increasingly realistic and easy to produce, raising concerns about the reliability of human judgments in misinformation settings. We study audiovisual deepfake detection by measuring how consistently crowd workers distinguish authentic from manipulated videos and, when they flag a video as manipulated, how accurately they identify the manipulation type (audio-only, video-only, or audio-video) and how consistently they report manipulation timestamps. We run two matched crowdsourcing studies on Prolific using AV-Deepfake1M and the Trusted Media Challenge (TMC) dataset. We sample 48 videos per dataset (96 total) and collect 960 judgments (10 per video). Results show that crowd workers rarely misclassify authentic videos as manipulated, but they miss many manipulations, and agreement remains limited across videos. Aggregating multiple judgments per video stabilizes the authenticity signal, but it cannot recover manipulations that most workers consistently miss. Manipulation type identification is substantially noisier than authenticity detection even when workers detect a manipulation, with joint audio-video cases being particularly hard to recognize. Overall, these findings suggest that crowdsourcing can provide a scalable screening signal for audiovisual authenticity, while reliable modality attribution remains an open challenge.