Rachith Aiyappa

Matthew R. DeVerna, Francesco Pierri, Rachith Aiyappa et al.

To analyze the flow of information online, experts often rely on platform-provided data from social media companies, which typically attribute all resharing actions to an original poster. This obscures the true dynamics of how information spreads online, as users can be exposed to content in various ways. While most researchers analyze data as it is provided by the platform and overlook this issue, some attempt to infer the structure of information cascades. However, the absence of ground truth about actual diffusion cascades makes it impossible to verify the efficacy of these efforts. We propose a novel parametric reconstruction approach and use it to investigate how overlooking cascade reconstruction distorts analyses of social influence, community detection, and information diffusion. Two case studies involving data from Twitter and Bluesky reveal that cascade inference significantly impacts the identification of both influential users and communities, therefore affecting downstream analyses in general. Analysis of the diffusion of over 40,000 true and false news stories on Twitter reveals that the assumptions made during the reconstruction procedure drastically distort both microscopic and macroscopic properties of cascade networks. This work highlights the challenges of studying information spreading processes on complex networks and has significant implications for the broader study of digital platforms.

Rachith Aiyappa, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak et al.

ChatGPT, the first large language model (LLM) with mass adoption, has demonstrated remarkable performance in numerous natural language tasks. Despite its evident usefulness, evaluating ChatGPT's performance in diverse problem domains remains challenging due to the closed nature of the model and its continuous updates via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). We highlight the issue of data contamination in ChatGPT evaluations, with a case study of the task of stance detection. We discuss the challenge of preventing data contamination and ensuring fair model evaluation in the age of closed and continuously trained models.

Ozgur Can Seckin, Rachith Aiyappa, Madalina Vlasceanu et al.

Our belief systems are shaped by social processes, such as observations and influence, and by cognitive processes, such as the drive for internal coherence. These processes steer how individual beliefs evolve and become connected. The resulting belief networks contain both causal and associative links, including spurious ones, such as stereotypes. Here, we develop an agent-based model of belief networks that demonstrates how two basic mechanisms -- social interaction and a drive for internal coherence -- can give rise to such stereotypes without any underlying reality. We further demonstrate how stereotypes, when coupled with shared group identity, can give rise to affective polarization, even in the absence of ideological conflicts.

Byunghwee Lee, Rachith Aiyappa, Yong-Yeol Ahn et al.

Beliefs form the foundation of human cognition and decision-making, guiding our actions and social connections. A model encapsulating beliefs and their interrelationships is crucial for understanding their influence on our actions. However, research on belief interplay has often been limited to beliefs related to specific issues and relied heavily on surveys. We propose a method to study the nuanced interplay between thousands of beliefs by leveraging an online user debate data and mapping beliefs onto a neural embedding space constructed using a fine-tuned large language model (LLM). This belief space captures the interconnectedness and polarization of diverse beliefs across social issues. Our findings show that positions within this belief space predict new beliefs of individuals and estimate cognitive dissonance based on the distance between existing and new beliefs. This study demonstrates how LLMs, combined with collective online records of human beliefs, can offer insights into the fundamental principles that govern human belief formation.

Rachith Aiyappa, Shruthi Senthilmani, Jisun An et al.

We investigate the performance of LLM-based zero-shot stance detection on tweets. Using FlanT5-XXL, an instruction-tuned open-source LLM, with the SemEval 2016 Tasks 6A, 6B, and P-Stance datasets, we study the performance and its variations under different prompts and decoding strategies, as well as the potential biases of the model. We show that the zero-shot approach can match or outperform state-of-the-art benchmarks, including fine-tuned models. We provide various insights into its performance including the sensitivity to instructions and prompts, the decoding strategies, the perplexity of the prompts, and to negations and oppositions present in prompts. Finally, we ensure that the LLM has not been trained on test datasets, and identify a positivity bias which may partially explain the performance differences across decoding strategie

Joseph Malone, Rachith Aiyappa, Byunghwee Lee et al.

Beliefs shape how people reason, communicate, and behave. Rather than existing in isolation, they exhibit a rich correlational structure--some connected through logical dependencies, others through indirect associations or social processes. As usage of large language models (LLMs) becomes more ubiquitous in our society, LLMs' ability to understand and reason through human beliefs has many implications from privacy issues to personalized persuasion and the potential for stereotyping. Yet how LLMs capture this interrelated landscape of beliefs remains unclear. For instance, when predicting someone's beliefs, what information affects the prediction most--who they are (demographics), what else they believe (prior stances), or a combination of both? We address these questions using data from an online debate platform, evaluating the ability of off-the-shelf open-weight LLMs to predict individuals' stance under four conditions: no context, demographics only, prior beliefs only, and both combined. We find that both types of information improve predictions over a blind baseline, with their combination yielding the best performance in most cases. However, the relative value of each varies substantially across belief domains. These findings reveal how current LLMs leverage different types of social information when reasoning about human beliefs, highlighting both their capabilities and limitations.