Anders Giovanni Møller

Anders Giovanni Møller, Jacob Aarup Dalsgaard, Arianna Pera et al.

In the realm of Computational Social Science (CSS), practitioners often navigate complex, low-resource domains and face the costly and time-intensive challenges of acquiring and annotating data. We aim to establish a set of guidelines to address such challenges, comparing the use of human-labeled data with synthetically generated data from GPT-4 and Llama-2 in ten distinct CSS classification tasks of varying complexity. Additionally, we examine the impact of training data sizes on performance. Our findings reveal that models trained on human-labeled data consistently exhibit superior or comparable performance compared to their synthetically augmented counterparts. Nevertheless, synthetic augmentation proves beneficial, particularly in improving performance on rare classes within multi-class tasks. Furthermore, we leverage GPT-4 and Llama-2 for zero-shot classification and find that, while they generally display strong performance, they often fall short when compared to specialized classifiers trained on moderately sized training sets.

Jonathan Ivey, Shivani Kumar, Jiayu Liu et al.

Studying and building datasets for dialogue tasks is both expensive and time-consuming due to the need to recruit, train, and collect data from study participants. In response, much recent work has sought to use large language models (LLMs) to simulate both human-human and human-LLM interactions, as they have been shown to generate convincingly human-like text in many settings. However, to what extent do LLM-based simulations \textit{actually} reflect human dialogues? In this work, we answer this question by generating a large-scale dataset of 100,000 paired LLM-LLM and human-LLM dialogues from the WildChat dataset and quantifying how well the LLM simulations align with their human counterparts. Overall, we find relatively low alignment between simulations and human interactions, demonstrating a systematic divergence along the multiple textual properties, including style and content. Further, in comparisons of English, Chinese, and Russian dialogues, we find that models perform similarly. Our results suggest that LLMs generally perform better when the human themself writes in a way that is more similar to the LLM's own style.

Anders Giovanni Møller, Luca Maria Aiello

Large Language Models are expressive tools that enable complex tasks of text understanding within Computational Social Science. Their versatility, while beneficial, poses a barrier for establishing standardized best practices within the field. To bring clarity on the values of different strategies, we present an overview of the performance of modern LLM-based classification methods on a benchmark of 23 social knowledge tasks. Our results point to three best practices: select models with larger vocabulary and pre-training corpora; avoid simple zero-shot in favor of AI-enhanced prompting; fine-tune on task-specific data, and consider more complex forms instruction-tuning on multiple datasets only when only training data is more abundant.

Simon Martin Breum, Daniel Vædele Egdal, Victor Gram Mortensen et al.

The increasing capability of Large Language Models to act as human-like social agents raises two important questions in the area of opinion dynamics. First, whether these agents can generate effective arguments that could be injected into the online discourse to steer the public opinion. Second, whether artificial agents can interact with each other to reproduce dynamics of persuasion typical of human social systems, opening up opportunities for studying synthetic social systems as faithful proxies for opinion dynamics in human populations. To address these questions, we designed a synthetic persuasion dialogue scenario on the topic of climate change, where a 'convincer' agent generates a persuasive argument for a 'skeptic' agent, who subsequently assesses whether the argument changed its internal opinion state. Different types of arguments were generated to incorporate different linguistic dimensions underpinning psycho-linguistic theories of opinion change. We then asked human judges to evaluate the persuasiveness of machine-generated arguments. Arguments that included factual knowledge, markers of trust, expressions of support, and conveyed status were deemed most effective according to both humans and agents, with humans reporting a marked preference for knowledge-based arguments. Our experimental framework lays the groundwork for future in-silico studies of opinion dynamics, and our findings suggest that artificial agents have the potential of playing an important role in collective processes of opinion formation in online social media.