arXiv:2607. 24191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Conversational stance detection has shifted from static text analysis to dynamic multimodal modeling.
arXiv:2605.27388v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for computational social analysis, yet faithfully representing the "thick description...
arXiv:2608.29803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs...
The paper introduces a controlled debate framework where two large language models (LLMs) discuss a contested topic—climate‑change attribution—while one model is assigned a stance and sometimes instructed to persuade. Across experiments with GPT‑6, Luna, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, the authors observe that same‑model interactions tend to narrow opinion gaps for one model, whereas cross‑model interactions widen them. The study finds that explicit stance reports and in‑dialogue behavior capture different aspects of opinion dynamics, and that a blanket persuasion instruction does not reliably increase influence.
arXiv:2606. 05330v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change.
arXiv:2606. 14715v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents are increasingly used to simulate real world interactions, but it remains unclear whether simulated behaviors preserve the content patterns and interaction dynamics of real human behaviors.
MMDS-Bench is a new diagnostic benchmark for multimodal dynamic stance classification in social media parent‑reply interactions. It contains 3,482 multimodal instances annotated with a seven‑label stance taxonomy, plus an 800‑instance subset that demands structured reasoning over parent and reply understanding and stance‑relation inference. The benchmark also tags each instance with five challenge factors—multimodal fusion, parent framing, non‑literal expression, interaction reasoning, and label‑boundary ambiguity—and evaluates 12 multimodal large language models using a reference‑grounded LLM‑judge protocol, revealing that current models still struggle with relational inference beyond separate parent and reply comprehension.
arXiv:2609.38256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about politically contentious issues, yet evaluations typically treat a model's...
The paper introduces mutable transcripts, an interaction paradigm that lets users edit prior turns in a chat, turning the conversation history into an editable state rather than a fixed record. A prototype was built and tested with 17 participants, who preferred mutable transcripts over standard chat for clarity, confidence, and ease of use, and reported less need to restart conversations. Analysis of user study transcripts shows that mutable transcripts can shorten conversations and remove outdated context, suggesting that user-driven revisions improve interaction quality.
arXiv:2606. 08076v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored.
The paper introduces a stance‑granularity selection policy for dialog systems that engage users with alternative viewpoints. By using Perspectivized Stance Vectors to break positions into concept‑level stances, the system selects the most novel viewpoint within a bandit‑controlled distance bound. Experiments with 63 participants show that concept‑level stance yields more varied exposure sequences and broader coverage of topic positions, though it does not affect depth of justification or reconstruction accuracy.
The paper introduces CoCoEval, a framework for evaluating large language model (LLM)–simulated conversations by detecting 10 types of inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors at the turn level. Using CoCoEval, the authors compare human conversations with those generated by GPT‑4.1, GPT‑5.1, and Claude Opus 4, finding that LLMs produce far fewer such behaviors under vanilla prompting and that prompt engineering or fine‑tuning often over‑produces specific behaviors. The study highlights gaps between human and LLM‑simulated interactions that conventional Likert‑scale evaluations miss, raising concerns about using LLMs as proxies for human social interaction.