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.

Static benchmarks for harmful content detection face limitations in scalability and diversity, and may also be affected by contamination from web-scale pre-training corpora. To address these issues, we propose a framework for synthesizing harmful content, leveraging persona-guided large language model (LLM) agents. Our approach constructs two-dimensional user personas by integrating demographic identities and topical interests with situational harmful strategies, enabling the simulation of diverse and contextually grounded harmful interactions. We evaluate the framework along three dimensions: harmfulness, challenge level, and diversity. Both human and LLM-based evaluations confirm that our framework achieves a high harmful generation success rate. Experiments across multiple detection systems reveal that our synthetic scenarios are more challenging to detect than those in existing benchmarks. Furthermore, a multi-faceted analysis confirms that our approach achieves linguistic and topical diversity comparable to human-curated datasets, establishing our framework as an effective tool for robust stress-testing of harmful content detection systems.

Ensuring persona fidelity in large language models (LLMs) is essential for maintaining coherent and engaging human-AI interactions. However, LLMs often exhibit Out-of-Character (OOC) behavior, where generated responses deviate from an assigned persona, leading to inconsistencies that affect model reliability. Existing evaluation methods typically assign single scores to entire responses, struggling to capture subtle persona misalignment, particularly in long-form text generation. To address this limitation, we propose an atomic-level evaluation framework that quantifies persona fidelity at a finer granularity. Our three key metrics measure the degree of persona alignment and consistency within and across generations. Our approach enables a more precise and realistic assessment of persona fidelity by identifying subtle deviations that real users would encounter. Through our experiments, we demonstrate that our framework effectively detects persona inconsistencies that prior methods overlook. By analyzing persona fidelity across diverse tasks and personality types, we reveal how task structure and persona desirability influence model adaptability, highlighting challenges in maintaining consistent persona expression.

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 big 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.

Trolling in online communities typically involves disruptive behaviors such as provoking anger and manipulating discussions, leading to a polarized atmosphere and emotional distress. Robust moderation is essential for mitigating these negative impacts and maintaining a healthy and constructive community atmosphere. However, effectively addressing trolls is difficult because their behaviors vary widely and require different response strategies (RSs) to counter them. This diversity makes it challenging to choose an appropriate RS for each specific situation.To address this challenge, our research investigates whether humans have preferred strategies tailored to different types of trolling behaviors.Our findings reveal a correlation between the types of trolling encountered and the preferred RS. In this paper, we introduce a methodology for generating counter-responses to trolls by recommending appropriate RSs, supported by a dataset aligning these strategies with human preferences across various troll contexts. The experimental results demonstrate that our proposed approach guides constructive discussion and reduces the negative effects of trolls, thereby enhancing the online community environment.

Social bias is shaped by the accumulation of social perceptions towards targets across various demographic identities. To fully understand such social bias in large language models (LLMs), it is essential to consider the composite of social perceptions from diverse perspectives among identities. Previous studies have either evaluated biases in LLMs by indirectly assessing the presence of sentiments towards demographic identities in the generated text or measuring the degree of alignment with given stereotypes. These methods have limitations in directly quantifying social biases at the level of distinct perspectives among identities. In this paper, we aim to investigate how social perceptions from various viewpoints contribute to the development of social bias in LLMs. To this end, we propose a novel strategy to intuitively quantify these social perceptions and suggest metrics that can evaluate the social biases within LLMs by aggregating diverse social perceptions. The experimental results show the quantitative demonstration of the social attitude in LLMs by examining social perception. The analysis we conducted shows that our proposed metrics capture the multi-dimensional aspects of social bias, enabling a fine-grained and comprehensive investigation of bias in LLMs.

Social media is one of the most highly sought resources for analyzing characteristics of the language by its users. In particular, many researchers utilized various linguistic features of mental health problems from social media. However, existing approaches to detecting mental disorders face critical challenges, such as the scarcity of high-quality data or the trade-off between addressing the complexity of models and presenting interpretable results grounded in expert domain knowledge. To address these challenges, we design a simple but flexible model that preserves domain-based interpretability. We propose a novel approach that captures the semantic meanings directly from the text and compares them to symptom-related descriptions. Experimental results demonstrate that our model outperforms relevant baselines on various mental disorder detection tasks. Our detailed analysis shows that the proposed model is effective at leveraging domain knowledge, transferable to other mental disorders, and providing interpretable detection results.

Online trolls increase social costs and cause psychological damage to individuals. With the proliferation of automated accounts making use of bots for trolling, it is difficult for targeted individual users to handle the situation both quantitatively and qualitatively. To address this issue, we focus on automating the method to counter trolls, as counter responses to combat trolls encourage community users to maintain ongoing discussion without compromising freedom of expression. For this purpose, we propose a novel dataset for automatic counter response generation. In particular, we constructed a pair-wise dataset that includes troll comments and counter responses with labeled response strategies, which enables models fine-tuned on our dataset to generate responses by varying counter responses according to the specified strategy. We conducted three tasks to assess the effectiveness of our dataset and evaluated the results through both automatic and human evaluation. In human evaluation, we demonstrate that the model fine-tuned with our dataset shows a significantly improved performance in strategy-controlled sentence generation.