arXiv subjects

Dimitris Tsirmpas

Publications and source records attributed to Dimitris Tsirmpas.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

To Facilitate or not to Facilitate: Human and LLM Facilitator Tendencies in Online Discussions

Automating facilitation in online discussions is a long-standing social concern given the increasing time we spend on online spaces and the failure of content moderation approaches. While studies have been conducted on how to facilitate, none have answered the essential question of when to do so. A potential answer is using LLMs, which ostensibly make automated, large-scale intervention increasingly feasible. In this study, we examine when LLMs decide to facilitate by defining what facilitation is, observing when humans decide to facilitate, and comparing their decisions with those made by LLMs. To this end, we create PEFK, a corpus standardizing and aggregating all relevant facilitation datasets. We are the first to run a survey on facilitation timing, which we execute using expert facilitative participants and LLM-as-a-judge models. We discover that while humans are more cautious, LLMs are excessively eager to facilitate, although both are more certain when judging that facilitation is not needed. We then investigate whether this behavior can be corrected using alternative setups for LLMs and training ModernBert classifiers on established datasets, finding that the latter perform more reliably than the former, although current datasets impose a relatively low performance ceiling.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Are we chasing ghosts? Quantifying unattributable polarization, and attributing the rest to annotator groups

Standard agreement metrics often fail to capture systematic differences in opinion between minority and majority-group annotators, jeopardizing tasks such as hate speech and toxicity detection. Polarization has recently been proposed as a more robust way of distinguishing minor disagreements from systematic differences in opinion, but existing approaches do not provide practical tools for attributing it to specific annotator groups. We evaluate current methods and identify two major limitations in realistic settings: (1) the presence of ``inherent'' polarization that cannot be attributed to any known or latent groups, and (2) opposing polarization effects canceling each other out in aggregated annotations. To address these issues, we introduce a new metric that measures and tests the statistical significance of polarization attribution for annotator groups while avoiding these limitations, as well as an open-source Python library implementation, finding that no more than 20 annotators are needed per comment for reliable estimation. We apply our method to four subjective NLP datasets and find that gender and race consistently explain polarization patterns, while differences between annotator groups become stronger as the groups are further apart.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Designing Synthetic Discussion Generation Systems: A Case Study for Online Facilitation

A critical challenge in social science research is the high cost associated with experiments involving human participants. We identify Synthetic Discussion Generation (SDG), a novel Natural Language Processing (NLP) direction aimed at creating simulated discussions that enable cost-effective pilot experiments and develop a theoretical, task-agnostic framework for designing, evaluating, and implementing these simulations. We argue that the use of proprietary models such as the OpenAI GPT family for such experiments is often unjustified in terms of both cost and capability, despite its prevalence in current research. Our experiments demonstrate that smaller quantized models (7B-8B) can produce effective simulations at a cost more than 44 times lower compared to their proprietary counterparts. We use our framework in the context of online facilitation, where humans actively engage in discussions to improve them, unlike more conventional content moderation. By treating this problem as a downstream task for our framework, we show that synthetic simulations can yield generalizable results at least by revealing limitations before engaging human discussants. In LLM facilitators, a critical limitation is that they are unable to determine when to intervene in a discussion, leading to undesirable frequent interventions and, consequently, derailment patterns similar to those observed in human interactions. Additionally, we find that different facilitation strategies influence conversational dynamics to some extent. Beyond our theoretical SDG framework, we also present a cost-comparison methodology for experimental design, an exploration of available models and algorithms, an open-source Python framework, and a large, publicly available dataset of LLM-generated discussions across multiple models.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Evaluation and Facilitation of Online Discussions in the LLM Era: A Survey

We present a survey of methods for assessing and enhancing the quality of online discussions, focusing on the potential of LLMs. While online discourses aim, at least in theory, to foster mutual understanding, they often devolve into harmful exchanges, such as hate speech, threatening social cohesion and democratic values. Recent advancements in LLMs enable artificial facilitation agents to not only moderate content, but also actively improve the quality of interactions. Our survey synthesizes ideas from NLP and Social Sciences to provide (a) a new taxonomy on discussion quality evaluation, (b) an overview of intervention and facilitation strategies, (c) along with a new taxonomy of conversation facilitation datasets, (d) an LLM-oriented roadmap of good practices and future research directions, from technological and societal perspectives.

cs.CL↗