Amalie Brogaard Pauli

Amalie Brogaard Pauli, Maria Barrett, Max Müller-Eberstein et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday communication tasks, including drafting interpersonal messages intended to influence and persuade. Prior work has shown that LLMs can successfully persuade humans and amplify persuasive language. It is therefore essential to understand how user instructions affect the generation of persuasive language, and to understand whether the generated persuasive language differs, for example, when targeting different groups. In this work, we propose a framework for evaluating how persuasive language generation is affected by recipient gender, sender intent, or output language. We evaluate 13 LLMs and 16 languages using pairwise prompt instructions. We evaluate model responses on 19 categories of persuasive language using an LLM-as-judge setup grounded in social psychology and communication science. Our results reveal significant gender differences in the persuasive language generated across all models. These patterns reflect biases consistent with gender-stereotypical linguistic tendencies documented in social psychology and sociolinguistics.

Maria Barrett, Max Müller-Eberstein, Elisa Bassignana et al.

Textual domain is a crucial property within the Natural Language Processing (NLP) community due to its effects on downstream model performance. The concept itself is, however, loosely defined and, in practice, refers to any non-typological property, such as genre, topic, medium or style of a document. We investigate the core notion of domains via human proficiency in identifying related intrinsic textual properties, specifically the concepts of genre (communicative purpose) and topic (subject matter). We publish our annotations in *TGeGUM*: A collection of 9.1k sentences from the GUM dataset (Zeldes, 2017) with single sentence and larger context (i.e., prose) annotations for one of 11 genres (source type), and its topic/subtopic as per the Dewey Decimal library classification system (Dewey, 1979), consisting of 10/100 hierarchical topics of increased granularity. Each instance is annotated by three annotators, for a total of 32.7k annotations, allowing us to examine the level of human disagreement and the relative difficulty of each annotation task. With a Fleiss' kappa of at most 0.53 on the sentence level and 0.66 at the prose level, it is evident that despite the ubiquity of domains in NLP, there is little human consensus on how to define them. By training classifiers to perform the same task, we find that this uncertainty also extends to NLP models.

Amalie Brogaard Pauli, Isabelle Augenstein, Ira Assent

Large language models (LLMs) make it easy to rewrite a text in any style -- e.g. to make it more polite, persuasive, or more positive -- but evaluation thereof is not straightforward. A challenge lies in measuring content preservation: that content not attributable to style change is retained. This paper presents a large meta-evaluation of metrics for evaluating style and attribute transfer, focusing on content preservation. We find that meta-evaluation studies on existing datasets lead to misleading conclusions about the suitability of metrics for content preservation. Widely used metrics show a high correlation with human judgments despite being deemed unsuitable for the task -- because they do not abstract from style changes when evaluating content preservation. We show that the overly high correlations with human judgment stem from the nature of the test data. To address this issue, we introduce a new, challenging test set specifically designed for evaluating content preservation metrics for style transfer. We construct the data by creating high variation in the content preservation. Using this dataset, we demonstrate that suitable metrics for content preservation for style transfer indeed are style-aware. To support efficient evaluation, we propose a new style-aware method that utilises small language models, obtaining a higher alignment with human judgements than prompting a model of a similar size as an autorater. ater.

Amalie Brogaard Pauli, Isabelle Augenstein, Ira Assent

We are exposed to much information trying to influence us, such as teaser messages, debates, politically framed news, and propaganda - all of which use persuasive language. With the recent interest in Large Language Models (LLMs), we study the ability of LLMs to produce persuasive text. As opposed to prior work which focuses on particular domains or types of persuasion, we conduct a general study across various domains to measure and benchmark to what degree LLMs produce persuasive language - both when explicitly instructed to rewrite text to be more or less persuasive and when only instructed to paraphrase. We construct the new dataset Persuasive-Pairs of pairs of a short text and its rewrite by an LLM to amplify or diminish persuasive language. We multi-annotate the pairs on a relative scale for persuasive language: a valuable resource in itself, and for training a regression model to score and benchmark persuasive language, including for new LLMs across domains. In our analysis, we find that different 'personas' in LLaMA3's system prompt change persuasive language substantially, even when only instructed to paraphrase.