Eshwar Chandrasekharan

Jiwon Kim, Maya Ajit, Sherry Gong et al.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in generating supportive responses for mental health queries, but improving their usefulness, empathy, and safety often requires substantial compute, expert input, and labeled data. At the same time, deploying proprietary, cloud-based models for mental health-related interactions raises important privacy and data-governance concerns, given the sensitivities. To address this challenge, we introduce LLUMI setup that can be hosted in-house within protected environments. LLUMI consists of two complementary components: a generation model (GM), which drafts supportive responses to mental health queries, and an improvement model (IM), which revises an initial human-crafted response. We leverage feedback signals from Reddit mental health communities, using community endorsement patterns such as upvotes and downvotes to construct chosen-rejected response pairs for Supervised Fine Tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We further align LLUMI using human evaluation across five dimensions: readability, empathy, connection, actionability, and safety. Our results show that, despite relying on smaller open-source models rather than proprietary cloud-based GPT models, LLUMI achieves comparable performance across linguistic analyses and human evaluations. These findings suggest that open-source models, when trained with community-derived preference signals, can support high-quality mental health support assistance while offering a more privacy-preserving alternative for sensitive support contexts.

Soorya Ram Shimgekar, Agam Goyal, Amruta Parulekar et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where user tone ranges from polite to adversarial or toxic, yet less is known about whether toxic language in otherwise semantically equivalent prompts can degrade factual reliability. We study how lexical and tone-based prompt perturbations affect the factual reliability of LLMs. Using controlled prompt variations across polite, random, and three toxicity levels, we evaluate five LLMs on ARC-Easy, GSM8K, and MMLU. We find that toxic lexical perturbations consistently reduce factual accuracy and increase uncertainty, while polite phrasing yields limited and inconsistent changes. To examine whether these answer inconsistencies correspond to internal changes, we conduct attribution-graph analyses of model activations and influences. We find that increasing toxicity selectively amplifies perturbation-sensitive variant nodes while relatively stable core reasoning nodes remain more invariant. These findings position prompt tone as a critical dimension of LLM reliability and provide behavioral and mechanistic evidence that surface-level lexical variation can alter factual outputs and internal computation.

Agam Goyal, Charlotte Lambert, Yoshee Jain et al.

A major task for moderators of online spaces is norm-setting, essentially creating shared norms for user behavior in their communities. Platform design principles emphasize the importance of highlighting norm-adhering examples and explicitly stating community norms. However, norms and values vary between communities and go beyond content-level attributes, making it challenging for platforms and researchers to provide automated ways to identify desirable behavior to be highlighted. Current automated approaches to detect desirability are limited to measures of prosocial behavior, but we do not know whether these measures fully capture the spectrum of what communities value. In this paper, we use upvotes, which express community approval, as a proxy for desirability and examine 16,000 highly-upvoted comments across 80 popular sub-communities on Reddit. Using a large language model, we extract values from these comments across two years (2016 and 2022) and compile 64 and 72 $\textit{macro}$, $\textit{meso}$, and $\textit{micro}$ values for 2016 and 2022 respectively, based on their frequency across communities. Furthermore, we find that existing computational models for measuring prosociality were inadequate to capture on average $82\%$ of the values we extracted. Finally, we show that our approach can not only extract most of the qualitatively-identified values from prior taxonomies, but also uncover new values that are actually encouraged in practice. Our findings highlight the need for nuanced models of desirability that go beyond preexisting prosocial measures. This work has implications for improving moderator understanding of their community values and provides a framework that can supplement qualitative approaches with larger-scale content analyses.

Agam Goyal, Olivia Pal, Hari Sundaram et al.

As autonomous LLM-based agents increasingly populate social platforms, understanding the dynamics of AI-agent communities becomes essential for both communication research and platform governance. We present the first large-scale empirical comparison of AI-agent and human online communities, analyzing 73,899 Moltbook and 189,838 Reddit posts across five matched communities. Structurally, we find that Moltbook exhibits extreme participation inequality (Gini = 0.84 vs. 0.47) and high cross-community author overlap (33.8\% vs. 0.5\%). In terms of linguistic attributes, content generated by AI-agents is emotionally flattened, cognitively shifted toward assertion over exploration, and socially detached. These differences give rise to apparent community-level homogenization, but we show this is primarily a structural artifact of shared authorship. At the author level, individual agents are more identifiable than human users, driven by outlier stylistic profiles amplified by their extreme posting volume. As AI-mediated communication reshapes online discourse, our work offers an empirical foundation for understanding how multi-agent interaction gives rise to collective communication dynamics distinct from those of human communities.

Xianyang Zhan, Agam Goyal, Yilun Chen et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in many natural language understanding tasks, including content moderation. However, these models can be expensive to query in real-time and do not allow for a community-specific approach to content moderation. To address these challenges, we explore the use of open-source small language models (SLMs) for community-specific content moderation tasks. We fine-tune and evaluate SLMs (less than 15B parameters) by comparing their performance against much larger open- and closed-sourced models in both a zero-shot and few-shot setting. Using 150K comments from 15 popular Reddit communities, we find that SLMs outperform zero-shot LLMs at content moderation -- 11.5% higher accuracy and 25.7% higher recall on average across all communities. Moreover, few-shot in-context learning leads to only a marginal increase in the performance of LLMs, still lacking compared to SLMs. We further show the promise of cross-community content moderation, which has implications for new communities and the development of cross-platform moderation techniques. Finally, we outline directions for future work on language model based content moderation. Code and models can be found at https://github.com/AGoyal0512/SLM-Mod.

Agam Goyal, Yian Wang, Eshwar Chandrasekharan et al.

LLM-based social simulations can generate believable community interactions, enabling ``policy wind tunnels'' where governance interventions are tested before deployment. But believability is not causality. Claims like ``intervention $A$ reduces escalation'' require causal semantics that current simulation work typically does not specify. We propose adopting the causal counterfactual framework, distinguishing \textit{necessary causation} (would the outcome have occurred without the intervention?) from \textit{sufficient causation} (does the intervention reliably produce the outcome?). This distinction maps onto different stakeholder needs: moderators diagnosing incidents require evidence about necessity, while platform designers choosing policies require evidence about sufficiency. We formalize this mapping, show how simulation design can support estimation under explicit assumptions, and argue that the resulting quantities should be interpreted as simulator-conditional causal estimates whose policy relevance depends on simulator fidelity. Establishing this framework now is essential: it helps define what adequate fidelity means and moves the field from simulations that look realistic toward simulations that can support policy changes.

Michelle Huang, Agam Goyal, Koustuv Saha et al.

Generative search systems are increasingly replacing link-based retrieval with AI-generated summaries, yet little is known about how these systems differ in sources, language, and fidelity to cited material. We examine responses to 11,000 real search queries across four systems -- vanilla GPT, Search GPT, Google AI Overviews, and traditional Google Search -- at three levels: source diversity, linguistic characterization of the generated summary, and source-summary fidelity. We find that generative search systems exhibit significant \textit{source-selection} biases in their citations, favoring certain sources over others. Incorporating search also selectively attenuates epistemic markers, reducing hedging by up to 60\% while preserving confidence language in the AI-generated summaries. At the same time, AI summaries further compound the citation biases: Wikipedia and longer sources are disproportionately overrepresented, whereas cited social media content and negatively framed sources are substantially underrepresented. Our findings highlight the potential for \textit{answer bubbles}, in which identical queries yield structurally different information realities across systems, with implications for user trust, source visibility, and the transparency of AI-mediated information access.

Olivia Pal, Agam Goyal, Eshwar Chandrasekharan et al.

News consumption on social media has become ubiquitous, yet how different forms of engagement shape psychosocial outcomes remains unclear. To address this gap, we leveraged a large-scale dataset of ~26M posts and ~45M comments on the BlueSky platform, and conducted a quasi-experimental study, matching 81,345 Treated users exposed to News feeds with 83,711 Control users using stratified propensity score analysis. We examined psychosocial wellbeing, in terms of affective, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes. Our findings reveal that news engagement produces systematic trade-offs: increased depression, stress, and anxiety, yet decreased loneliness and increased social interaction on the platform. Regression models reveal that News feed bookmarking is associated with greater psychosocial deterioration compared to commenting or quoting, with magnitude differences exceeding tenfold. These per-engagement effects accumulate with repeated exposure, showing significant psychosocial impacts. Our work extends theories of news effects beyond crisis-centric frameworks by demonstrating that routine consumption creates distinct psychological dynamics depending on engagement type, and bears implications for tools and interventions for mitigating the psychosocial costs of news consumption on social media.

Olivia Pal, Agam Goyal, Eshwar Chandrasekharan et al.

Algorithmic feeds have become primary environments for encountering information online, yet while they shape what people see, less is known about how sustained feed exposure shapes how people write. Drawing on Cultivation Theory, we examine whether algorithmic feeds function as online environments that leave measurable traces in users' language. We leverage a large-scale longitudinal dataset of 235M posts by 4M users on Bluesky, and conduct a quasi-experimental study matching an initial pool of 368,513 users exposed to one of three feeds -- News, Science, and Blacksky -- with a pool of 2,001,915 active control users who did not engage with any of these feeds. We examine linguistic evolution across three dimensions: lexico-semantics, psycholinguistics, and topics. We find that users exposed to these feeds show significantly greater stylistic accommodation, semantic alignment, and register formalization than matched controls. These effects vary markedly by feed identity -- Blacksky produces the deepest psycholinguistic restructuring, with significant shifts in cognitive processing, affective expression, and pronoun use, while News and Science effects are largely confined to register and topical focus. Regression models reveal that reposting is the most consistent predictor of linguistic convergence across all feeds, whereas posting and bookmarking show feed-dependent effects, with effects differing more than fourfold across feeds. Our work extends Cultivation Theory beyond belief formation to linguistic behavior, demonstrating that feeds function as persistent linguistic environments that gradually shape what and how users write online. Our work has implications for studying algorithmic influence, online identity formation, and the design and governance of feed-based platforms that mediate online interactions.

Omkar Gurjar, Agam Goyal, Eshwar Chandrasekharan

Key point extraction is an important task in argument summarization which involves extracting high-level short summaries from arguments. Existing approaches for KP extraction have been mostly evaluated on the popular ArgKP21 dataset. In this paper, we highlight some of the major limitations of the ArgKP21 dataset and demonstrate the need for new benchmarks that are more representative of actual human conversations. Using SoTA large language models (LLMs), we curate a new argument key point extraction dataset called ArgCMV comprising of around 12K arguments from actual online human debates spread across over 3K topics. Our dataset exhibits higher complexity such as longer, co-referencing arguments, higher presence of subjective discourse units, and a larger range of topics over ArgKP21. We show that existing methods do not adapt well to ArgCMV and provide extensive benchmark results by experimenting with existing baselines and latest open source models. This work introduces a novel KP extraction dataset for long-context online discussions, setting the stage for the next generation of LLM-driven summarization research.

Vinay Koshy, Frederick Choi, Yi-Shyuan Chiang et al.

Research into community content moderation often assumes that moderation teams govern with a single, unified voice. However, recent work has found that moderators disagree with one another at modest, but concerning rates. The problem is not the root disagreements themselves. Subjectivity in moderation is unavoidable, and there are clear benefits to including diverse perspectives within a moderation team. Instead, the crux of the issue is that, due to resource constraints, moderation decisions end up being made by individual decision-makers. The result is decision-making that is inconsistent, which is frustrating for community members. To address this, we develop Venire, an ML-backed system for panel review on Reddit. Venire uses a machine learning model trained on log data to identify the cases where moderators are most likely to disagree. Venire fast-tracks these cases for multi-person review. Ideally, Venire allows moderators to surface and resolve disagreements that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. We conduct three studies through which we design and evaluate Venire: a set of formative interviews with moderators, technical evaluations on two datasets, and a think-aloud study in which moderators used Venire to make decisions on real moderation cases. Quantitatively, we demonstrate that Venire is able to improve decision consistency and surface latent disagreements. Qualitatively, we find that Venire helps moderators resolve difficult moderation cases more confidently. Venire represents a novel paradigm for human-AI content moderation, and shifts the conversation from replacing human decision-making to supporting it.

Agam Goyal, Xianyang Zhan, Yilun Chen et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential in flagging harmful content in online communities. Yet, existing approaches for moderation require a separate model for every community and are opaque in their decision-making, limiting real-world adoption. We introduce Mixture of Moderation Experts (MoMoE), a modular, cross-community framework that adds post-hoc explanations to scalable content moderation. MoMoE orchestrates four operators -- Allocate, Predict, Aggregate, Explain -- and is instantiated as seven community-specialized experts (MoMoE-Community) and five norm-violation experts (MoMoE-NormVio). On 30 unseen subreddits, the best variants obtain Micro-F1 scores of 0.72 and 0.67, respectively, matching or surpassing strong fine-tuned baselines while consistently producing concise and reliable explanations. Although community-specialized experts deliver the highest peak accuracy, norm-violation experts provide steadier performance across domains. These findings show that MoMoE yields scalable, transparent moderation without needing per-community fine-tuning. More broadly, they suggest that lightweight, explainable expert ensembles can guide future NLP and HCI research on trustworthy human-AI governance of online communities.

Agam Goyal, Koyel Mukherjee, Apoorv Saxena et al.

Dense retrievers in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems exhibit systematic biases -- including brevity, position, literal matching, and repetition biases -- that can compromise retrieval quality. Query rewriting techniques are now standard in RAG pipelines, yet their impact on these biases remains unexplored. We present the first systematic study of how query enhancement techniques affect dense retrieval biases, evaluating five methods across six retrievers. Our findings reveal that simple LLM-based rewriting achieves the strongest aggregate bias reduction (54\%), yet fails under adversarial conditions where multiple biases combine. Mechanistic analysis uncovers two distinct mechanisms: simple rewriting reduces bias through increased score variance, while pseudo-document generation methods achieve reduction through genuine decorrelation from bias-inducing features. However, no technique uniformly addresses all biases, and effects vary substantially across retrievers. Our results provide practical guidance for selecting query enhancement strategies based on specific bias vulnerabilities. More broadly, we establish a taxonomy distinguishing query-document interaction biases from document encoding biases, clarifying the limits of query-side interventions for debiasing RAG systems.

Jiwon Kim, Violeta J. Rodriguez, Dong Whi Yoo et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for mental health support, yet they can produce responses that are overly directive, inconsistent, or clinically misaligned, particularly in sensitive or high-risk contexts. Existing approaches to mitigating these risks largely rely on implicit alignment through training or prompting, offering limited transparency and runtime accountability. We introduce PAIR-SAFE, a paired-agent framework for auditing and refining AI-generated mental health support that integrates a Responder agent with a supervisory Judge agent grounded in the clinically validated Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI-4) framework. The Judgeaudits each response and provides structuredALLOW or REVISE decisions that guide runtime response refinement. We simulate counseling interactions using a support-seeker simulator derived from human-annotated motivational interviewing data. We find that Judge-supervised interactions show significant improvements in key MITI dimensions, including Partnership, Seek Collaboration, and overall Relational quality. Our quantitative findings are supported by qualitative expert evaluation, which further highlights the nuances of runtime supervision. Together, our results reveal that such pairedagent approach can provide clinically grounded auditing and refinement for AI-assisted conversational mental health support.

Tanvi Bajpai, Drshika Asher, Anwesa Goswami et al.

Social platforms, and the online communities that use them, are evolving at a rapid pace. As a result, research and development regarding how to moderate online communities is being out-paced. In this paper, we present a novel framework that will allow moderation researchers and practitioners to not only keep-up with the diverse landscape of available platforms and affordances, but also comprehensively represent and analyze moderation on these platforms. The MIC framework represents a social platform's moderation ecosystem using a base-set of 12 platform-level affordances, along with a notion of the inter-affordance relationships that can exist between them. These affordances fall into the three categories -- Members, Infrastructure, and Content -- that are derived from Grimmelmann's taxonomy of moderation, a framework that is already widely accepted and used by the moderation research community. To show how MIC serves as an insightful augmentation of Grimmelmann's lens, we begin by describing how its components have already been shown to impact Grimmelmann's techniques for moderation. Then, we demonstrate the advantages of using an affordance-aware framework like MIC by analyzing several social platforms over the course of two case studies. First, we analyze individual platforms using MIC and demonstrate how MIC can be used to examine the effects of platform changes on the moderation ecosystem and identify potential new challenges in moderation. Next, use MIC to systematically compare three platforms and propose potential moderation mechanisms that each can adapt. Moderation researchers and stakeholders can use such comparisons to uncover where platforms can emulate established, successful and better-studied platforms, as well as learn from the pitfalls other platforms have encountered.

Jiajun Bao, Junjie Wu, Yiming Zhang et al.

Online conversations can go in many directions: some turn out poorly due to antisocial behavior, while others turn out positively to the benefit of all. Research on improving online spaces has focused primarily on detecting and reducing antisocial behavior. Yet we know little about positive outcomes in online conversations and how to increase them-is a prosocial outcome simply the lack of antisocial behavior or something more? Here, we examine how conversational features lead to prosocial outcomes within online discussions. We introduce a series of new theory-inspired metrics to define prosocial outcomes such as mentoring and esteem enhancement. Using a corpus of 26M Reddit conversations, we show that these outcomes can be forecasted from the initial comment of an online conversation, with the best model providing a relative 24% improvement over human forecasting performance at ranking conversations for predicted outcome. Our results indicate that platforms can use these early cues in their algorithmic ranking of early conversations to prioritize better outcomes.

Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Shagun Jhaver, Amy Bruckman et al.

Should social media platforms override a community's self-policing when it repeatedly break rules? What actions can they consider? In light of this debate, platforms have begun experimenting with softer alternatives to outright bans. We examine one such intervention called quarantining, that impedes direct access to and promotion of controversial communities. Specifically, we present two case studies of what happened when Reddit quarantined the influential communities r/TheRedPill (TRP) and r/The_Donald (TD). Using over 85M Reddit posts, we apply causal inference methods to examine the quarantine's effects on TRP and TD. We find that the quarantine made it more difficult to recruit new members: new user influx to TRP and TD decreased by 79.5% and 58%, respectively. Despite quarantining, existing users' misogyny and racism levels remained unaffected. We conclude by reflecting on the effectiveness of this design friction in limiting the influence of toxic communities and discuss broader implications for content moderation.

David Jurgens, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Libby Hemphill

Online abusive behavior affects millions and the NLP community has attempted to mitigate this problem by developing technologies to detect abuse. However, current methods have largely focused on a narrow definition of abuse to detriment of victims who seek both validation and solutions. In this position paper, we argue that the community needs to make three substantive changes: (1) expanding our scope of problems to tackle both more subtle and more serious forms of abuse, (2) developing proactive technologies that counter or inhibit abuse before it harms, and (3) reframing our effort within a framework of justice to promote healthy communities.