Elinor Poole-Dayan

Suyash Fulay, William Brannon, Shrestha Mohanty et al. · mit

Language model alignment research often attempts to ensure that models are not only helpful and harmless, but also truthful and unbiased. However, optimizing these objectives simultaneously can obscure how improving one aspect might impact the others. In this work, we focus on analyzing the relationship between two concepts essential in both language model alignment and political science: truthfulness and political bias. We train reward models on various popular truthfulness datasets and subsequently evaluate their political bias. Our findings reveal that optimizing reward models for truthfulness on these datasets tends to result in a left-leaning political bias. We also find that existing open-source reward models (i.e., those trained on standard human preference datasets) already show a similar bias and that the bias is larger for larger models. These results raise important questions about the datasets used to represent truthfulness, potential limitations of aligning models to be both truthful and politically unbiased, and what language models capture about the relationship between truth and politics.

Elinor Poole-Dayan, Daniel T Kessler, Hannah Chiou et al. · mit

Public Narratives (PNs) are key tools for leadership development and civic mobilization, yet their systematic analysis remains challenging due to their subjective interpretation and the high cost of expert annotation. In this work, we propose a novel computational framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to automate the qualitative annotation of public narratives. Using a codebook we co-developed with subject-matter experts, we evaluate LLM performance against that of expert annotators. Our work reveals that LLMs can achieve near-human-expert performance, achieving an average F1 score of 0.80 across 8 narratives and 14 codes. We then extend our analysis to empirically explore how PN framework elements manifest across a larger dataset of 22 stories. Lastly, we extrapolate our analysis to a set of political speeches, establishing a novel lens in which to analyze political rhetoric in civic spaces. This study demonstrates the potential of LLM-assisted annotation for scalable narrative analysis and highlights key limitations and directions for future research in computational civic storytelling.

Margaret Hughes, Brandon Roy, Elinor Poole-Dayan et al. · mit

Growing literature explores toxicity and polarization in discourse, with comparatively less work on characterizing what makes dialogue prosocial and constructive. We explore conversational discourse and investigate a method for characterizing its quality built upon the notion of ``responsivity'' -- whether one person's conversational turn is responding to a preceding turn. We develop and evaluate methods for quantifying responsivity -- first through semantic similarity of speaker turns, and second by leveraging state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) to identify the relation between two speaker turns. We evaluate both methods against a ground truth set of human-annotated conversations. Furthermore, selecting the better performing LLM-based approach, we characterize the nature of the response -- whether it responded to that preceding turn in a substantive way or not. We view these responsivity links as a fundamental aspect of dialogue but note that conversations can exhibit significantly different responsivity structures. Accordingly, we then develop conversation-level derived metrics to address various aspects of conversational discourse. We use these derived metrics to explore other conversations and show that they support meaningful characterizations and differentiations across a diverse collection of conversations.

Elinor Poole-Dayan, Deb Roy, Jad Kabbara · mit

In an era of increasing societal fragmentation, political polarization, and erosion of public trust in institutions, representative deliberative assemblies are emerging as a promising democratic forum for developing effective policy outcomes on complex global issues. Despite theoretical attention, there remains limited empirical work that systematically traces how specific ideas evolve, are prioritized, or are discarded during deliberation to form policy recommendations. Addressing these gaps, this work poses two central questions: (1) How might we trace the evolution and distillation of ideas into concrete recommendations within deliberative assemblies? (2) How does the deliberative process shape delegate perspectives and influence voting dynamics over the course of the assembly? To address these questions, we develop LLM-based methodologies for empirically analyzing transcripts from a tech-enhanced in-person deliberative assembly. The framework identifies and visualizes the space of expressed suggestions. We also empirically reconstruct each delegate's evolving perspective throughout the assembly. Our methods contribute novel empirical insights into deliberative processes and demonstrate how LLMs can surface high-resolution dynamics otherwise invisible in traditional assembly outputs.

Elinor Poole-Dayan, Deb Roy, Jad Kabbara

While state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on many tasks, there has been extensive research on undesirable model behavior such as hallucinations and bias. In this work, we investigate how the quality of LLM responses changes in terms of information accuracy, truthfulness, and refusals depending on three user traits: English proficiency, education level, and country of origin. We present extensive experimentation on three state-of-the-art LLMs and two different datasets targeting truthfulness and factuality. Our findings suggest that undesirable behaviors in state-of-the-art LLMs occur disproportionately more for users with lower English proficiency, of lower education status, and originating from outside the US, rendering these models unreliable sources of information towards their most vulnerable users.