The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition

In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) without updating the models' parameters, in contrast to the traditional gradient-based finetuning. The promise of ICL is that the LLM can adapt to perform the present task at a competitive or state-of-the-art level at a fraction of the cost. The ability of LLMs to perform tasks in this few-shot manner relies on their background knowledge of the task (or task priors). However, recent work has found that, unlike traditional learning, LLMs are unable to fully integrate information from demonstrations that contrast task priors. This can lead to performance saturation at suboptimal levels, especially for subjective tasks such as emotion recognition, where the mapping from text to emotions can differ widely due to variability in human annotations. In this work, we design experiments and propose measurements to explicitly quantify the consistency of proxies of LLM priors and their pull on the posteriors. We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. We also find that the larger the model, the stronger these effects become. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain and when interpreting ICL results.

Don't Blame the Data, Blame the Model: Understanding Noise and Bias When Learning from Subjective Annotations

Researchers have raised awareness about the harms of aggregating labels especially in subjective tasks that naturally contain disagreements among human annotators. In this work we show that models that are only provided aggregated labels show low confidence on high-disagreement data instances. While previous studies consider such instances as mislabeled, we argue that the reason the high-disagreement text instances have been hard-to-learn is that the conventional aggregated models underperform in extracting useful signals from subjective tasks. Inspired by recent studies demonstrating the effectiveness of learning from raw annotations, we investigate classifying using Multiple Ground Truth (Multi-GT) approaches. Our experiments show an improvement of confidence for the high-disagreement instances.

How Susceptible are Large Language Models to Ideological Manipulation?

Large Language Models (LLMs) possess the potential to exert substantial influence on public perceptions and interactions with information. This raises concerns about the societal impact that could arise if the ideologies within these models can be easily manipulated. In this work, we investigate how effectively LLMs can learn and generalize ideological biases from their instruction-tuning data. Our findings reveal a concerning vulnerability: exposure to only a small amount of ideologically driven samples significantly alters the ideology of LLMs. Notably, LLMs demonstrate a startling ability to absorb ideology from one topic and generalize it to even unrelated ones. The ease with which LLMs' ideologies can be skewed underscores the risks associated with intentionally poisoned training data by malicious actors or inadvertently introduced biases by data annotators. It also emphasizes the imperative for robust safeguards to mitigate the influence of ideological manipulations on LLMs.

Whose Emotions and Moral Sentiments Do Language Models Reflect?

Language models (LMs) are known to represent the perspectives of some social groups better than others, which may impact their performance, especially on subjective tasks such as content moderation and hate speech detection. To explore how LMs represent different perspectives, existing research focused on positional alignment, i.e., how closely the models mimic the opinions and stances of different groups, e.g., liberals or conservatives. However, human communication also encompasses emotional and moral dimensions. We define the problem of affective alignment, which measures how LMs' emotional and moral tone represents those of different groups. By comparing the affect of responses generated by 36 LMs to the affect of Twitter messages, we observe significant misalignment of LMs with both ideological groups. This misalignment is larger than the partisan divide in the U.S. Even after steering the LMs towards specific ideological perspectives, the misalignment and liberal tendencies of the model persist, suggesting a systemic bias within LMs.

Reading Between the Tweets: Deciphering Ideological Stances of Interconnected Mixed-Ideology Communities

Recent advances in NLP have improved our ability to understand the nuanced worldviews of online communities. Existing research focused on probing ideological stances treats liberals and conservatives as separate groups. However, this fails to account for the nuanced views of the organically formed online communities and the connections between them. In this paper, we study discussions of the 2020 U.S. election on Twitter to identify complex interacting communities. Capitalizing on this interconnectedness, we introduce a novel approach that harnesses message passing when finetuning language models (LMs) to probe the nuanced ideologies of these communities. By comparing the responses generated by LMs and real-world survey results, our method shows higher alignment than existing baselines, highlighting the potential of using LMs in revealing complex ideologies within and across interconnected mixed-ideology communities.

Characterizing Online Eating Disorder Communities with Large Language Models

The rise in eating disorders, a dangerous mental health condition with high mortality and morbidity, has been linked to the proliferation of idealized body images on social media. However, the link between social media and eating disorders is far more complex. We argue that social media platforms create a feedback loop that amplifies the growth of content and communities that promote eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia. Specifically, social media platforms make it easy for vulnerable individuals to find and connect to like-minded others, while group dynamic processes encourage them to stay engaged within communities that promote and glorify harmful behaviors linked to eating disorders. We characterize this dynamic empirically through a combination of network and language analysis. We describe a novel framework that leverages large language models to analyze the discourse within online communities and probe their attitudes on topics related to eating disorders to identify potentially harmful content. Our work emphasizes the need for better social media moderation to disrupt harmful feedback loops and protect vulnerable individuals.

Capturing Perspectives of Crowdsourced Annotators in Subjective Learning Tasks

In most classification models, it has been assumed to have a single ground truth label for each data point. However, subjective tasks like toxicity classification can lead to genuine disagreement among annotators. In these cases aggregating labels will result in biased labeling and, consequently, biased models that can overlook minority opinions. Previous studies have shed light on the pitfalls of label aggregation and have introduced a handful of practical approaches to tackle this issue. Recently proposed multi-annotator models, which predict labels individually per annotator, are vulnerable to under-determination for annotators with small samples. This problem is especially the case in crowd-sourced datasets. In this work, we propose Annotator Aware Representations for Texts (AART) for subjective classification tasks. We will show the improvement of our method on metrics that assess the performance on capturing annotators' perspectives. Additionally, our approach involves learning representations for annotators, allowing for an exploration of the captured annotation behaviors.

Inducing Political Bias Allows Language Models Anticipate Partisan Reactions to Controversies

Social media platforms are rife with politically charged discussions. Therefore, accurately deciphering and predicting partisan biases using Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly critical. In this study, we address the challenge of understanding political bias in digitized discourse using LLMs. While traditional approaches often rely on finetuning separate models for each political faction, our work innovates by employing a singular, instruction-tuned LLM to reflect a spectrum of political ideologies. We present a comprehensive analytical framework, consisting of Partisan Bias Divergence Assessment and Partisan Class Tendency Prediction, to evaluate the model's alignment with real-world political ideologies in terms of stances, emotions, and moral foundations. Our findings reveal the model's effectiveness in capturing emotional and moral nuances, albeit with some challenges in stance detection, highlighting the intricacies and potential for refinement in NLP tools for politically sensitive contexts. This research contributes significantly to the field by demonstrating the feasibility and importance of nuanced political understanding in LLMs, particularly for applications requiring acute awareness of political bias.

Discovering collective narratives shifts in online discussions

Narrative is a foundation of human cognition and decision making. Because narratives play a crucial role in societal discourses and spread of misinformation and because of the pervasive use of social media, the narrative dynamics on social media can have profound societal impact. Yet, systematic and computational understanding of online narratives faces critical challenge of the scale and dynamics; how can we reliably and automatically extract narratives from massive amount of texts? How do narratives emerge, spread, and die? Here, we propose a systematic narrative discovery framework that fill this gap by combining change point detection, semantic role labeling (SRL), and automatic aggregation of narrative fragments into narrative networks. We evaluate our model with synthetic and empirical data two-Twitter corpora about COVID-19 and 2017 French Election. Results demonstrate that our approach can recover major narrative shifts that correspond to the major events.

CPL-NoViD: Context-Aware Prompt-based Learning for Norm Violation Detection in Online Communities

Detecting norm violations in online communities is critical to maintaining healthy and safe spaces for online discussions. Existing machine learning approaches often struggle to adapt to the diverse rules and interpretations across different communities due to the inherent challenges of fine-tuning models for such context-specific tasks. In this paper, we introduce Context-aware Prompt-based Learning for Norm Violation Detection (CPL-NoViD), a novel method that employs prompt-based learning to detect norm violations across various types of rules. CPL-NoViD outperforms the baseline by incorporating context through natural language prompts and demonstrates improved performance across different rule types. Significantly, it not only excels in cross-rule-type and cross-community norm violation detection but also exhibits adaptability in few-shot learning scenarios. Most notably, it establishes a new state-of-the-art in norm violation detection, surpassing existing benchmarks. Our work highlights the potential of prompt-based learning for context-sensitive norm violation detection and paves the way for future research on more adaptable, context-aware models to better support online community moderators.