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.
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.
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.
Diganta Misra, Muawiz Chaudhary, Agam Goyal et al.
In an age dominated by resource-intensive foundation models, the ability to efficiently adapt to downstream tasks is crucial. Visual Prompting (VP), drawing inspiration from the prompting techniques employed in Large Language Models (LLMs), has emerged as a pivotal method for transfer learning in the realm of computer vision. As the importance of efficiency continues to rise, research into model compression has become indispensable in alleviating the computational burdens associated with training and deploying over-parameterized neural networks. A primary objective in model compression is to develop sparse and/or quantized models capable of matching or even surpassing the performance of their over-parameterized, full-precision counterparts. Although previous studies have explored the effects of model compression on transfer learning, its impact on visual prompting-based transfer remains unclear. This study aims to bridge this gap, shedding light on the fact that model compression detrimentally impacts the performance of visual prompting-based transfer, particularly evident in scenarios with low data volume. Furthermore, our findings underscore the adverse influence of sparsity on the calibration of downstream visual-prompted models. However, intriguingly, we also illustrate that such negative effects on calibration are not present when models are compressed via quantization. This empirical investigation underscores the need for a nuanced understanding beyond mere accuracy in sparse and quantized settings, thereby paving the way for further exploration in Visual Prompting techniques tailored for sparse and quantized models.
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.
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.
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.
Large language models (LLMs) are now ubiquitous in user-facing applications, yet they still generate undesirable toxic outputs, including profanity, vulgarity, and derogatory remarks. Although numerous detoxification methods exist, most apply broad, surface-level fixes and can therefore easily be circumvented by jailbreak attacks. In this paper we leverage sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to identify toxicity-related directions in the residual stream of models and perform targeted activation steering using the corresponding decoder vectors. We introduce three tiers of steering aggressiveness and evaluate them on GPT-2 Small and Gemma-2-2B, revealing trade-offs between toxicity reduction and language fluency. At stronger steering strengths, these causal interventions surpass competitive baselines in reducing toxicity by up to 20%, though fluency can degrade noticeably on GPT-2 Small depending on the aggressiveness. Crucially, standard NLP benchmark scores upon steering remain stable, indicating that the model's knowledge and general abilities are preserved. We further show that feature-splitting in wider SAEs hampers safety interventions, underscoring the importance of disentangled feature learning. Our findings highlight both the promise and the current limitations of SAE-based causal interventions for LLM detoxification, further suggesting practical guidelines for safer language-model deployment.
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.