Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Eshwar Chandrasekharan

Publications and source records attributed to Eshwar Chandrasekharan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Prompt PerturbAItions: Mechanisms of LLM Response Inconsistencies

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where user phrasing ranges from polite to casual to toxic, yet less is known about whether such lexical variation in otherwise semantically equivalent prompts can degrade factual reliability. We study how lexical and tone-based prompt perturbations affect the factual reliability of LLMs. Using controlled prompt variations spanning polite, random, and increasingly toxic levels, we evaluate seven LLMs on ARC-Easy, GSM8K, and MMLU. We find that lexical perturbations reduce factual accuracy and increase predictive uncertainty in most models. Interestingly, increasing toxicity results in decreasing accuracy. To examine whether these answer inconsistencies correspond to internal changes, we conduct attribution-graph analyses of model activations and influences. We find that perturbations amplify perturbation-sensitive variant nodes relative to core reasoning nodes. We also observed a monotonic trend with increasing toxicity score and increasing activation and influence in Variant nodes. These findings position prompt wording and tone as a critical dimension of LLM reliability and provide behavioral and mechanistic evidence that surface-level lexical variation can alter factual outputs and internal computation.

cs.CL↗

PAIR-SAFE: A Paired-Agent Approach for Runtime Auditing and Refining AI-Mediated Mental Health Support

LLMs are increasingly used for mental health support, yet they can produce responses that are overly directive, inconsistent, or clinically misaligned. Most risk mitigation approaches rely on implicit alignment through training or prompting, offering limited runtime accountability. We introduce PAIR-SAFE, a paired-agent framework that integrates a Responder agent with a Judge agent grounded in the clinically validated Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI-4). The Judge audits each response and issues \allow{} or \revise{} decisions to guide real-time refinement. We evaluate interactions using a support-seeker simulator derived from human-annotated data. The Judge-supervised interactions show significant improvements in key MITI dimensions, including Partnership, Seek Collaboration, and overall Relational quality. Our quantitative findings are corroborated by expert evaluation, highlighting nuances of runtime supervision. Our study reveals that paired-agent auditing can provide clinically grounded, transparent oversight for AI-assisted mental health support.

cs.HC↗

X-pressing Intimacy: Mental Health Disclosure After Twitter Acquisition

Social media platforms provide spaces for individuals to disclose mental health experiences and seek support, yet how these disclosures evolve during major shifts in platform governance remains unclear. We examine mental health self-disclosure surrounding Elon Musk's October 2022 acquisition of Twitter, analyzing approximately 824K tweets across anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder (BD), borderline personality disorder (BPD), and suicidal ideation (SI) or related experiences, alongside 266K comparison tweets. Using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and an LLM-based intimacy classifier, we characterize changes in psycholinguistic expression and disclosure intimacy. Following the acquisition, we observe declines in affective and social language, alongside increases in first-person singular pronouns and future-focused expressions. Intimacy patterns vary by condition: anxiety, depression, and BPD show increases in low-intimacy and decreases in moderate-intimacy disclosures, whereas suicide-related posts show more high-intimacy disclosures. However, compared with broader Twitter discourse, only the relative decline in moderate- versus low-intimacy disclosure for BPD remains statistically significant. Our findings underscore the importance of considering both language and intimacy when studying platform transitions, informing the design of online environments that support sensitive self-disclosure.

cs.SI↗

Trustworthy FinAInce: Unpacking How AI-Mediated Financial Advice is Judged

As generative AI is increasingly used as a source of personal financial guidance, understanding how people appraise such advice is important for supporting appropriate reliance. We conducted a randomized vignette experiment with 285 U.S. adults across eight financial decisions, independently varying three advice styles---AI, expert, and online community---and displayed source labels while holding the underlying recommendation consistent. Advice style most strongly shaped message and safety appraisals, Expert labels selectively increased perceived source knowledge, and decision context primarily shaped risk and safety appraisals. These appraisals were associated with downstream judgments, with models explaining 69.2% of overall quality, 75.9% of trust, and 82.9% of intended reliance. Expert-style advice also remained most preferred when shown without source labels. Our findings have implications for understanding financial advice evaluation, distinguishing the roles of advice style and source labels, and designing financial AI that supports grounded evaluation rather than simply maximizing trust.

cs.HC↗

From Web(logs) to Web(AI): Questions, Platforms, and Methods across Twenty Editions of ICWSM

Over twenty editions, the ICWSM community has examined social life online as platforms, interactions, and research methods have changed. What can this body of research tell us at this critical juncture, as AI increasingly reshapes how people communicate online? We analyzed 2,139 indexed contributions from 2007 to 2026, distinguishing topics identified through nonnegative matrix factorization from problem framings captured through explicit textual cues. We find that platform mentions shift from blogs toward Twitter and, more recently, Reddit. Online community research maintains a similar topic share (10.5% to 10.0%), but governance cues within it increase from 4.0% to 34.3%. Harm-related cues also increase after restricting abstracts to a fixed length. Our review also traces advances in sampling, measurement, and causal and experimental methods. We discuss how AI-mediated interactions complicate these questions and provide a reporting checklist to support research across changing platforms.

cs.SI↗

Stereotypically Yours: Portrayal and Perception of Race-Coded AI Companions

AI companions can purportedly adopt racial personas, raising questions about how they represent identity and how users interpret these portrayals. We combined an algorithmic audit of race-coded AI personas with interviews with 12 companion users who interacted with a probe. Our audit revealed systematic differences, such as Asian-coded male personas receiving higher submissiveness scores than White counterparts, and Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous male personas receiving higher aggression scores than their White counterparts in open-weight models. Interviews revealed that participants envisioned AI companions as offering cultural familiarity and outside perspectives, but differed in which portrayals they considered meaningful or stereotypical. Some rejected overt racial signaling while still expecting culturally distinctive responses. Triangulating these findings with theory, we highlight how social norms and cultural expectations complicate efforts to support meaningful racial representation without reproducing stereotypes. We discuss how companion personalization should be evaluated beyond user satisfaction to account for broader representational harms.

cs.HC↗

Social Simulacra in the Wild: AI Agent Communities on Moltbook

As autonomous LLM-based agents increasingly populate social platforms, understanding the dynamics of AI-agent communities becomes essential for both communication research and platform governance. We present the first large-scale empirical comparison of AI-agent and human online communities, analyzing 73,899 Moltbook and 189,838 Reddit posts across five matched communities. Structurally, we find that Moltbook exhibits extreme participation inequality (Gini = 0.84 vs. 0.47) and high cross-community author overlap (33.8% vs. 0.5%). In terms of linguistic attributes, content generated by AI-agents is emotionally flattened, cognitively shifted toward assertion over exploration, and socially detached. These differences give rise to apparent community-level homogenization, but we show this is primarily a structural artifact of shared authorship. At the author level, individual agents are more identifiable than human users, driven by outlier stylistic profiles amplified by their extreme posting volume. As AI-mediated communication reshapes online discourse, our work offers an empirical foundation for understanding how multi-agent interaction gives rise to collective communication dynamics distinct from those of human communities.

cs.CL↗

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC↗

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC↗

PeerPen: AI-Assisted Writing for Online Mental Health Peer Support

Online mental health communities thrive on peer support, yet those who volunteer to help often lack formal training and may struggle to articulate supportive responses. AI co-writing could lower this barrier; however, peer support derives much of its value from being perceived as personal, raising questions around authorship, ownership, and trust. We built PeerPen, a writing assistance tool embedded within a Reddit-like interface, supporting two main features: draft generation and revision of user-written responses. Through semi-structured interviews with 15 participants, we find that PeerPen reduced the burden of composing responses and increased confidence in offering support. Participants wanted AI to assist their writing without taking over authorship and anticipated tensions around authenticity and trust. Such assistance could make authorship uncertain even for responses written without it, weakening trust across the community. We contribute design implications for AI writing assistance that scaffolds supportive communication, preserves authorship, and accounts for community-level trust.

cs.HC↗

First Impressions: How Placement Shapes the Influence of AI Summaries

AI-generated summaries increasingly mediate how people interpret information across platforms, including product reviews on e-commerce sites. Using Amazon's AI summaries as a case study, we conducted a preregistered, randomized experiment (N = 278) comparing how AI summaries and user reviews shaped product perceptions, and how their influence varied with valence and presentation order. We found that both AI summaries and user reviews influenced participants' opinions, with negative summaries having a larger effect than positive ones. Presentation order was the most important factor: the first source anchored judgment and only user reviews could displace an existing anchor. Although participants reported preferring user reviews, they often underestimated the influence of AI summaries on their judgments. Our findings show how the placement of AI summaries shapes user perception and highlight opportunities to design interfaces that support more deliberate judgments about when to rely on summaries and when to examine the underlying content directly.

cs.HC↗

The Wisdom of the Loudest: A Large-Scale Audit of Generative Search on Reddit

Online communities are valued not only for answers, but for the diversity of experiences and perspectives they contain. Generative search increasingly mediates access to this discourse, yet little is known about which community voices survive retrieval and synthesis. We audit Reddit Answers using 10,000 queries from 20 advice- and support-seeking communities, repeated three times to produce 30,000 answers over 14.68M comments. We find that differences across runs are driven primarily by retrieval, answers routinely combine evidence across communities, and selection strongly favors already-visible, top-level comments. Formal and directive language is more likely to be surfaced, while experiential voice is less likely to survive selection and is further weakened during synthesis, with first-person singular language declining sharply. These findings show that community-grounded generative search is not neutral summarization, and should be designed not only for relevance and fluency, but also for provenance, plurality, and legibility.

cs.IR↗

LLUMI: Improving LLM Writing Assistance for Mental Health Support with Online Community Feedback

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in generating supportive responses for mental health queries, but improving their usefulness, empathy, and safety often requires substantial compute, expert input, and labeled data. At the same time, deploying proprietary, cloud-based models for mental health-related interactions raises important privacy and data-governance concerns, given the sensitivities. To address this challenge, we introduce LLUMI setup that can be hosted in-house within protected environments. LLUMI consists of two complementary components: a generation model (GM), which drafts supportive responses to mental health queries, and an improvement model (IM), which revises an initial human-crafted response. We leverage feedback signals from Reddit mental health communities, using community endorsement patterns such as upvotes and downvotes to construct chosen--rejected response pairs for Supervised Fine Tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We further align LLUMI using human evaluation across five dimensions: readability, empathy, connection, actionability, and safety. Our results show that, despite relying on smaller open-source models rather than proprietary cloud-based GPT models, LLUMI achieves comparable performance across linguistic analyses and human evaluations. These findings suggest that open-source models, when trained with community-derived preference signals, can support high-quality mental health support assistance while offering a more privacy-preserving alternative for sensitive support contexts.

cs.HC↗

Using LLMs to Mimic the Conversational Dynamics of Reddit Communities

Online communities face a constant battle against toxicity and misinformation. While human moderators struggle to keep pace with the volume of content, LLMs offer a promising solution for automatically generating constructive responses and shaping online interactions. This paper preliminarily investigates if LLMs can mimic the communication styles of Reddit users using their comment history as context. We evaluate two prompting approaches: predicting a target comment and filling in masked comments. We find that LLMs outperform expectations at replicating comment structure and formality, but struggle to accurately capture nuanced emotions, e.g. understating joy and overstating anger. These findings highlight a promising direction for LLMs in guiding online conversations towards prosociality influencing emergent communication patterns and norms within the community. The results of our study inspire future work with more rigorous methods of evaluation to explore the LLMs' effectiveness across diverse online communities to better understand their broader societal impact.

cs.HC↗

Facts Without Rules: Boundary Metadata Collapse in Multi-Agent LLM Handoffs

Multi-agent LLM systems often coordinate by compressing an upstream interaction into a handoff artifact that downstream agents treat as shared state. We show that this handoff step is a structural source of privacy leakage: summaries preferentially preserve operational facts while weakening the boundary metadata that governs how those facts may be used---a failure mode we call \emph{summary collapse}. On a controlled multi-agent coordination testbed we measure marker survival with a human-validated judge ($κ= 0.74$), where $σ_b = 1$ means every boundary marker survives verbatim and $σ_b = 0$ means all are lost. Boundary-marker and operational-fact survival are nearly uncorrelated at the handoff level on both GPT-5-mini and DeepSeek-R1-32B (Pearson $r$ near zero): uncompressed free-text handoffs preserve boundaries at $σ_b \approx 0.80$, whereas a $25$-word budget drops $σ_b$ to ${\approx}0.57$ while operational-fact survival stays near ceiling. Controlled downstream tests reveal that protection depends on \emph{boundary explicitness}: vague languages leak in $73\%$ of GPT and $50\%$ of DeepSeek cases, while explicit constraints reduce leakage to under $15\%$ across all three tested models. A no-handoff single-agent control further shows the failure is not reducible to multi-agent topology as direct full-marker access still leaks more often than the operationalized handoff. Prompt-only mitigation and exact-string redaction only partially address the problem, while a gold-derived audience allowlist nearly eliminates leakage across models, showing that correctly identifying audience boundaries is the key factor.

cs.AI↗

VASTU: Language Models Struggle to Recognize Online Community Values

Online communities develop distinct norms for content they collectively value, yet it remains unclear whether current language models can recognize locally valued contributions in context. We formalize this as \textbf{community-conditioned preference prediction} and introduce \textsc{Vastu} (\underline{V}alue-\underline{A}ware \underline{S}ocial \underline{Tu}ning), a benchmark of 75,000 Reddit comments from 15 communities spanning Gaming, Science, Q\&A, Advice, and Politics. We evaluate four model families---prompted LLMs, LoRA-adapted SLMs, supervised encoders, and feature-based classifiers---across global, local, and context-conditioned settings. Our central finding is that parametric adaptation consistently outperforms prompting: supervised encoders reach 0.74 AUROC and fine-tuned SLMs 0.64--0.71, while the best prompted result is only 0.62. This gap is not merely quantitative---vanilla prompting yields over 80\% false-negative rates, systematically discarding content communities actually value. Conversational context narrows but does not close this divide. Together, these results suggest that local preference recognition requires community-specific training signal, not just better prompting. Our work supports future research on community-aware reward modeling, feed curation, and positive moderation.

cs.HC↗

Answer Bubbles: Information Exposure in AI-Mediated Search

Generative search systems are increasingly replacing link-based retrieval with AI-generated summaries, yet little is known about how these systems differ in sources, language, and fidelity to cited material. We examine responses to 11,000 real search queries across five systems---vanilla GPT, Search GPT, Perplexity Search with Grok, Google AI Overviews, and traditional Google Search---at three levels: source diversity, linguistic characterization of the generated summary, and source-summary fidelity. We find that generative search systems exhibit significant \textit{source-selection} biases in their citations, favoring certain sources over others. Incorporating search also selectively attenuates epistemic markers, reducing hedging by up to 60\% while preserving confidence language in the AI-generated summaries. At the same time, AI summaries further compound the citation biases: Wikipedia and longer sources are disproportionately overrepresented, whereas cited social media content and negatively framed sources are substantially underrepresented. Our findings highlight the potential for \textit{answer bubbles}, in which identical queries yield structurally different information realities across systems, with implications for user trust, source visibility, and the transparency of AI-mediated information access.

cs.IR↗

How People Evaluate AI-, Expert-, and Peer-Style Financial Advice

As generative AI increasingly becomes a common source of daily decision-making, including financial choices, it is critical to understand how people evaluate AI-generated financial advice. We conducted a preregistered vignette experiment (N = 285) in which substantive financial content---including facts, numerical values, recommendation direction, and core reasoning---was held constant while communication style varied across AI Financial Assistant (AI), Certified Financial Planner (Expert), and Online Community Forum (OC) advice. Displayed source attribution was independently manipulated through correctly labeled, unlabeled, and mislabeled conditions, allowing us to separate attribution effects from source-specific communication cues. Expert advice was rated more favorably than AI advice on 9 of 10 outcomes (|d|=0.20--0.47), and this advantage remained visible without source labels, where Expert advice outperformed AI advice on 8 of 10 outcomes (up to d=0.60). Correct labels added limited differentiation, whereas mislabeling increased ratings of AI advice for situational fit and overall quality (d=0.42 for each) and attenuated the Expert advantage in situational fit (d=-0.36). Descriptive analyses further showed that AI advice was most responsive to displayed attribution and, conversely, that advice-style differences were most visible under an AI label. These findings show that financial-advice evaluations are shaped jointly by displayed attribution and message-level communication cues. We position disclosure not as a neutral transparency mechanism, but as an interpretive frame whose accuracy and interaction with message cues can shape trust and reliance.

cs.HC↗