Yun-Shiuan Chuang

Yun-Shiuan Chuang

This paper presents two self-contained tutorials on stance detection in Twitter data using BERT fine-tuning and prompting large language models (LLMs). The first tutorial explains BERT architecture and tokenization, guiding users through training, tuning, and evaluating standard and domain-specific BERT models with HuggingFace transformers. The second focuses on constructing prompts and few-shot examples to elicit stances from ChatGPT and open-source FLAN-T5 without fine-tuning. Various prompting strategies are implemented and evaluated using confusion matrices and macro F1 scores. The tutorials provide code, visualizations, and insights revealing the strengths of few-shot ChatGPT and FLAN-T5 which outperform fine-tuned BERTs. By covering both model fine-tuning and prompting-based techniques in an accessible, hands-on manner, these tutorials enable learners to gain applied experience with cutting-edge methods for stance detection.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Agam Goyal, Nikunj Harlalka et al.

Accurately simulating human opinion dynamics is crucial for understanding a variety of societal phenomena, including polarization and the spread of misinformation. However, the agent-based models (ABMs) commonly used for such simulations often over-simplify human behavior. We propose a new approach to simulating opinion dynamics based on populations of Large Language Models (LLMs). Our findings reveal a strong inherent bias in LLM agents towards producing accurate information, leading simulated agents to consensus in line with scientific reality. This bias limits their utility for understanding resistance to consensus views on issues like climate change. After inducing confirmation bias through prompt engineering, however, we observed opinion fragmentation in line with existing agent-based modeling and opinion dynamics research. These insights highlight the promise and limitations of LLM agents in this domain and suggest a path forward: refining LLMs with real-world discourse to better simulate the evolution of human beliefs.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Yi Wu, Dhruv Gupta et al.

Adapting pre-trained language models (PLMs) for time-series text classification amidst evolving domain shifts (EDS) is critical for maintaining accuracy in applications like stance detection. This study benchmarks the effectiveness of evolving domain adaptation (EDA) strategies, notably self-training, domain-adversarial training, and domain-adaptive pretraining, with a focus on an incremental self-training method. Our analysis across various datasets reveals that this incremental method excels at adapting PLMs to EDS, outperforming traditional domain adaptation techniques. These findings highlight the importance of continually updating PLMs to ensure their effectiveness in real-world applications, paving the way for future research into PLM robustness against the natural temporal evolution of language.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Siddharth Suresh, Nikunj Harlalka et al.

Human groups are able to converge on more accurate beliefs through deliberation, even in the presence of polarization and partisan bias -- a phenomenon known as the "wisdom of partisan crowds." Generated agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human collective behavior, yet few benchmarks exist for evaluating their dynamics against the behavior of human groups. In this paper, we examine the extent to which the wisdom of partisan crowds emerges in groups of LLM-based agents that are prompted to role-play as partisan personas (e.g., Democrat or Republican). We find that they not only display human-like partisan biases, but also converge to more accurate beliefs through deliberation as humans do. We then identify several factors that interfere with convergence, including the use of chain-of-thought prompt and lack of details in personas. Conversely, fine-tuning on human data appears to enhance convergence. These findings show the potential and limitations of LLM-based agents as a model of human collective intelligence.

Ara Vartanian, Xiaoxi Sun, Yun-Shiuan Chuang et al.

This paper considers how interactions with AI algorithms can boost human creative thought. We employ a psychological task that demonstrates limits on human creativity, namely semantic feature generation: given a concept name, respondents must list as many of its features as possible. Human participants typically produce only a fraction of the features they know before getting "stuck." In experiments with humans and with a language AI (GPT-4) we contrast behavior in the standard task versus a variant in which participants can ask for algorithmically-generated hints. Algorithm choice is administered by a multi-armed bandit whose reward indicates whether the hint helped generating more features. Humans and the AI show similar benefits from hints, and remarkably, bandits learning from AI responses prefer the same prompting strategy as those learning from human behavior. The results suggest that strategies for boosting human creativity via computer interactions can be learned by bandits run on groups of simulated participants.

Chen-Wei Yu, Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Alexandros N. Lotsos et al.

Latent semantic similarity (LSS) is a measure of the similarity of information exchanges in a conversation. Challenging the assumption that higher LSS bears more positive psychological meaning, we propose that this association might depend on the type of conversation people have. On the one hand, the share-mind perspective would predict that higher LSS should be associated with more positive emotional experiences across the board. The broaden-and-build theory, on the other hand, would predict that higher LSS should be inversely associated with more positive emotional experiences specifically in pleasant conversations. Linear mixed modeling based on conversations among 50 long-term married couples supported the latter prediction. That is, partners experienced greater positive emotions when their overall information exchanges were more dissimilar in pleasant (but not conflict) conversations. This work highlights the importance of context in understanding the emotional correlates of LSS and exemplifies how modern natural language processing tools can be used to evaluate competing theory-driven hypotheses in social psychology.

Yirou Ge, Yixi Li, Alec Chiu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed in cost and latency-sensitive settings. While chain-of-thought improves reasoning, it can waste tokens on simple requests. We study selective thinking for tool-using LLMs and introduce Adaptive Rejection Sampling (Ada-RS), an algorithm-agnostic sample filtering framework for learning selective and efficient reasoning. For each given context, Ada-RS scores multiple sampled completions with an adaptive length-penalized reward then applies stochastic rejection sampling to retain only high-reward candidates (or preference pairs) for downstream optimization. We demonstrate how Ada-RS plugs into both preference pair (e.g. DPO) or grouped policy optimization strategies (e.g. DAPO). Using Qwen3-8B with LoRA on a synthetic tool call-oriented e-commerce benchmark, Ada-RS improves the accuracy-efficiency frontier over standard algorithms by reducing average output tokens by up to 80% and reducing thinking rate by up to 95% while maintaining or improving tool call accuracy. These results highlight that training-signal selection is a powerful lever for efficient reasoning in latency-sensitive deployments.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Chaitanya Kulkarni, Alec Chiu et al.

Interactive large language model (LLM) agents operating via multi-turn dialogue and multi-step tool calling are increasingly used in production. Benchmarks for these agents must both reliably compare models and yield on-policy training data. Prior agentic benchmarks (e.g., tau-bench, tau2-bench, AppWorld) rely on fully deterministic backends, which are costly to build and iterate. We propose Proxy State-Based Evaluation, an LLM-driven simulation framework that preserves final state-based evaluation without a deterministic database. Specifically, a scenario specifies the user goal, user/system facts, expected final state, and expected agent behavior, and an LLM state tracker infers a structured proxy state from the full interaction trace. LLM judges then verify goal completion and detect tool/user hallucinations against scenario constraints. Empirically, our benchmark produces stable, model-differentiating rankings across families and inference-time reasoning efforts, and its on-/off-policy rollouts provide supervision that transfers to unseen scenarios. Careful scenario specification yields near-zero simulator hallucination rates as supported by ablation studies. The framework also supports sensitivity analyses over user personas. Human-LLM judge agreement exceeds 90%, indicating reliable automated evaluation. Overall, proxy state-based evaluation offers a practical, scalable alternative to deterministic agentic benchmarks for industrial LLM agents.

Binwei Yao, Zefan Cai, Yun-Shiuan Chuang et al.

Preferences within a group of people are not uniform but follow a distribution. While existing alignment methods like Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) attempt to steer models to reflect human preferences, they struggle to capture the distributional pluralistic preferences within a group. These methods often skew toward dominant preferences, overlooking the diversity of opinions, especially when conflicting preferences arise. To address this issue, we propose Group Distributional Preference Optimization (GDPO), a novel framework that aligns language models with the distribution of preferences within a group by incorporating the concept of beliefs that shape individual preferences. GDPO calibrates a language model using statistical estimation of the group's belief distribution and aligns the model with belief-conditioned preferences, offering a more inclusive alignment framework than traditional methods. In experiments using both synthetic controllable opinion generation and real-world movie review datasets, we show that DPO fails to align with the targeted belief distributions, while GDPO consistently reduces this alignment gap during training. Moreover, our evaluation metrics demonstrate that GDPO outperforms existing approaches in aligning with group distributional preferences, marking a significant advance in pluralistic alignment.

Luhang Sun, Varsha Pendyala, Yun-Shiuan Chuang et al.

This paper leverages large-language models (LLMs) to experimentally determine optimal strategies for scaling up social media content annotation for stance detection on HPV vaccine-related tweets. We examine both conventional fine-tuning and emergent in-context learning methods, systematically varying strategies of prompt engineering across widely used LLMs and their variants (e.g., GPT4, Mistral, and Llama3, etc.). Specifically, we varied prompt template design, shot sampling methods, and shot quantity to detect stance on HPV vaccination. Our findings reveal that 1) in general, in-context learning outperforms fine-tuning in stance detection for HPV vaccine social media content; 2) increasing shot quantity does not necessarily enhance performance across models; and 3) different LLMs and their variants present differing sensitivity to in-context learning conditions. We uncovered that the optimal in-context learning configuration for stance detection on HPV vaccine tweets involves six stratified shots paired with detailed contextual prompts. This study highlights the potential and provides an applicable approach for applying LLMs to research on social media stance and skepticism detection.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Sameer Narendran, Nikunj Harlalka et al.

Guesstimation -- the task of making approximate quantitative estimates about objects or events -- is a common real-world skill, yet remains underexplored in large language model (LLM) research. We introduce three guesstimation datasets: MARBLES, FUTURE, and ELECPRED, spanning physical estimation (e.g., how many marbles fit in a cup) to abstract predictions (e.g., the 2024 U.S. presidential election). Inspired by the social science concept of Wisdom of Crowds (WOC)- where the median of multiple estimates improves accuracy-we propose WOC decoding for LLMs. We replicate WOC effects in human participants and find that LLMs exhibit similar benefits: median aggregation across sampled responses consistently improves accuracy over greedy decoding, self-consistency decoding, and mean decoding. This suggests that LLMs encode a world model that supports approximate reasoning. Our results position guesstimation as a useful probe of LLM world knowledge and highlight WOC decoding as a strategy for enhancing LLM guesstimation performance on real-world tasks.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Ruixuan Tu, Chengtao Dai et al.

Accurately modeling opinion change through social interactions is crucial for addressing issues like misinformation and polarization. While role-playing large language models (LLMs) offer a promising way to simulate human-like interactions, existing research shows that single-agent alignment does not guarantee authentic multi-agent group dynamics. Current LLM role-play setups often produce unnatural dynamics (e.g., premature convergence), without an empirical benchmark to measure authentic human opinion trajectories. To bridge this gap, we introduce DEBATE, the first large-scale empirical benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the authenticity of the interaction between multi-agent role-playing LLMs. DEBATE contains 29,417 messages from multi-round debate conversations among over 2,792 U.S.-based participants discussing 107 controversial topics, capturing both publicly-expressed messages and privately-reported opinions. Using DEBATE, we systematically evaluate and identify critical discrepancies between simulated and authentic group dynamics. We further demonstrate DEBATE's utility for aligning LLMs with human behavior through supervised fine-tuning, achieving improvements in surface-level metrics (e.g., ROUGE-L and message length) while highlighting limitations in deeper semantic alignment (e.g., semantic similarity). Our findings highlight both the potential and current limitations of role-playing LLM agents for realistically simulating human-like social dynamics.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Krirk Nirunwiroj, Zach Studdiford et al.

Creating human-like large language model (LLM) agents is crucial for faithful social simulation. Having LLMs role-play based on demographic information sometimes improves human likeness but often does not. This study assessed whether LLM alignment with human behavior can be improved by integrating information from empirically-derived human belief networks. Using data from a human survey, we estimated a belief network encompassing 64 topics loading on nine non-overlapping latent factors. We then seeded LLM-based agents with an opinion on one topic, and assessed the alignment of its expressed opinions on remaining test topics with corresponding human data. Role-playing based on demographic information alone did not align LLM and human opinions, but seeding the agent with a single belief greatly improved alignment for topics related in the belief network, and not for topics outside the network. These results suggest a novel path for human-LLM belief alignment in work seeking to simulate and understand patterns of belief distributions in society.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Jerry Zhu, Timothy T. Rogers

Whereas cognitive models of learning often assume direct experience with both the features of an event and with a true label or outcome, much of everyday learning arises from hearing the opinions of others, without direct access to either the experience or the ground truth outcome. We consider how people can learn which opinions to trust in such scenarios by extending the hedge algorithm: a classic solution for learning from diverse information sources. We first introduce a semi-supervised variant we call the delusional hedge capable of learning from both supervised and unsupervised experiences. In two experiments, we examine the alignment between human judgments and predictions from the standard hedge, the delusional hedge, and a heuristic baseline model. Results indicate that humans effectively incorporate both labeled and unlabeled information in a manner consistent with the delusional hedge algorithm -- suggesting that human learners not only gauge the accuracy of information sources but also their consistency with other reliable sources. The findings advance our understanding of human learning from diverse opinions, with implications for the development of algorithms that better capture how people learn to weigh conflicting information sources.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Xuezhou Zhang, Yuzhe Ma et al.

Successful teaching requires an assumption of how the learner learns - how the learner uses experiences from the world to update their internal states. We investigate what expectations people have about a learner when they teach them in an online manner using rewards and punishment. We focus on a common reinforcement learning method, Q-learning, and examine what assumptions people have using a behavioral experiment. To do so, we first establish a normative standard, by formulating the problem as a machine teaching optimization problem. To solve the machine teaching optimization problem, we use a deep learning approximation method which simulates learners in the environment and learns to predict how feedback affects the learner's internal states. What do people assume about a learner's learning and discount rates when they teach them an idealized exploration-exploitation task? In a behavioral experiment, we find that people can teach the task to Q-learners in a relatively efficient and effective manner when the learner uses a small value for its discounting rate and a large value for its learning rate. However, they still are suboptimal. We also find that providing people with real-time updates of how possible feedback would affect the Q-learner's internal states weakly helps them teach. Our results reveal how people teach using evaluative feedback and provide guidance for how engineers should design machine agents in a manner that is intuitive for people.