Social Dynamics as Critical Vulnerabilities that Undermine Objective Decision-Making in LLM Collectives

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision. Drawing inspiration from social psychology, we investigate how the reliability of this representative agent is undermined by the social context of its network. We define four key phenomena-social conformity, perceived expertise, dominant speaker effect, and rhetorical persuasion-and systematically manipulate the number of adversaries, relative intelligence, argument length, and argumentative styles. Our experiments demonstrate that the representative agent's accuracy consistently declines as social pressure increases: larger adversarial groups, more capable peers, and longer arguments all lead to significant performance degradation. Furthermore, rhetorical strategies emphasizing credibility or logic can further sway the agent's judgment, depending on the context. These findings reveal that multi-agent systems are sensitive not only to individual reasoning but also to the social dynamics of their configuration, highlighting critical vulnerabilities in AI delegates that mirror the psychological biases observed in human group decision-making.

Does Rationale Quality Matter? Enhancing Mental Disorder Detection via Selective Reasoning Distillation

The detection of mental health problems from social media and the interpretation of these results have been extensively explored. Research has shown that incorporating clinical symptom information into a model enhances domain expertise, improving its detection and interpretation performance. While large language models (LLMs) are shown to be effective for generating explanatory rationales in mental health detection, their substantially large parameter size and high computational cost limit their practicality. Reasoning distillation transfers this ability to smaller language models (SLMs), but inconsistencies in the relevance and domain alignment of LLM-generated rationales pose a challenge. This paper investigates how rationale quality impacts SLM performance in mental health detection and explanation generation. We hypothesize that ensuring high-quality and domain-relevant rationales enhances the distillation. To this end, we propose a framework that selects rationales based on their alignment with expert clinical reasoning. Experiments show that our quality-focused approach significantly enhances SLM performance in both mental disorder detection and rationale generation. This work highlights the importance of rationale quality and offers an insightful framework for knowledge transfer in mental health applications.

A Multi-Task Benchmark for Abusive Language Detection in Low-Resource Settings

Content moderation research has recently made significant advances, but still fails to serve the majority of the world's languages due to the lack of resources, leaving millions of vulnerable users to online hostility. This work presents a large-scale human-annotated multi-task benchmark dataset for abusive language detection in Tigrinya social media with joint annotations for three tasks: abusiveness, sentiment, and topic classification. The dataset comprises 13,717 YouTube comments annotated by nine native speakers, collected from 7,373 videos with a total of over 1.2 billion views across 51 channels. We developed an iterative term clustering approach for effective data selection. Recognizing that around 64% of Tigrinya social media content uses Romanized transliterations rather than native Ge'ez script, our dataset accommodates both writing systems to reflect actual language use. We establish strong baselines across the tasks in the benchmark, while leaving significant challenges for future contributions. Our experiments reveal that small, specialized multi-task models outperform the current frontier models in the low-resource setting, achieving up to 86% accuracy (+7 points) in abusiveness detection. We make the resources publicly available to promote research on online safety.

Different Bias Under Different Criteria: Assessing Bias in LLMs with a Fact-Based Approach

Large language models (LLMs) often reflect real-world biases, leading to efforts to mitigate these effects and make the models unbiased. Achieving this goal requires defining clear criteria for an unbiased state, with any deviation from these criteria considered biased. Some studies define an unbiased state as equal treatment across diverse demographic groups, aiming for balanced outputs from LLMs. However, differing perspectives on equality and the importance of pluralism make it challenging to establish a universal standard. Alternatively, other approaches propose using fact-based criteria for more consistent and objective evaluations, though these methods have not yet been fully applied to LLM bias assessments. Thus, there is a need for a metric with objective criteria that offers a distinct perspective from equality-based approaches. Motivated by this need, we introduce a novel metric to assess bias using fact-based criteria and real-world statistics. In this paper, we conducted a human survey demonstrating that humans tend to perceive LLM outputs more positively when they align closely with real-world demographic distributions. Evaluating various LLMs with our proposed metric reveals that model bias varies depending on the criteria used, highlighting the need for multi-perspective assessment.