Evaluating Creativity and Deception in Large Language Models: A Simulation Framework for Multi-Agent Balderdash

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in complex tasks and interactive environments, yet their creativity remains underexplored. This paper introduces a simulation framework utilizing the game Balderdash to evaluate both the creativity and logical reasoning of LLMs. In Balderdash, players generate fictitious definitions for obscure terms to deceive others while identifying correct definitions. Our framework enables multiple LLM agents to participate in this game, assessing their ability to produce plausible definitions and strategize based on game rules and history. We implemented a centralized game engine featuring various LLMs as participants and a judge LLM to evaluate semantic equivalence. Through a series of experiments, we analyzed the performance of different LLMs, examining metrics such as True Definition Ratio, Deception Ratio, and Correct Guess Ratio. The results provide insights into the creative and deceptive capabilities of LLMs, highlighting their strengths and areas for improvement. Specifically, the study reveals that infrequent vocabulary in LLMs' input leads to poor reasoning on game rules and historical context (https://github.com/ParsaHejabi/Simulation-Framework-for-Multi-Agent-Balderdash).

Secret Keepers: The Impact of LLMs on Linguistic Markers of Personal Traits

Prior research has established associations between individuals' language usage and their personal traits; our linguistic patterns reveal information about our personalities, emotional states, and beliefs. However, with the increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as writing assistants in everyday writing, a critical question emerges: are authors' linguistic patterns still predictive of their personal traits when LLMs are involved in the writing process? We investigate the impact of LLMs on the linguistic markers of demographic and psychological traits, specifically examining three LLMs - GPT3.5, Llama 2, and Gemini - across six different traits: gender, age, political affiliation, personality, empathy, and morality. Our findings indicate that although the use of LLMs slightly reduces the predictive power of linguistic patterns over authors' personal traits, the significant changes are infrequent, and the use of LLMs does not fully diminish the predictive power of authors' linguistic patterns over their personal traits. We also note that some theoretically established lexical-based linguistic markers lose their reliability as predictors when LLMs are used in the writing process. Our findings have important implications for the study of linguistic markers of personal traits in the age of LLMs.

Cost-Efficient Subjective Task Annotation and Modeling through Few-Shot Annotator Adaptation

In subjective NLP tasks, where a single ground truth does not exist, the inclusion of diverse annotators becomes crucial as their unique perspectives significantly influence the annotations. In realistic scenarios, the annotation budget often becomes the main determinant of the number of perspectives (i.e., annotators) included in the data and subsequent modeling. We introduce a novel framework for annotation collection and modeling in subjective tasks that aims to minimize the annotation budget while maximizing the predictive performance for each annotator. Our framework has a two-stage design: first, we rely on a small set of annotators to build a multitask model, and second, we augment the model for a new perspective by strategically annotating a few samples per annotator. To test our framework at scale, we introduce and release a unique dataset, Moral Foundations Subjective Corpus, of 2000 Reddit posts annotated by 24 annotators for moral sentiment. We demonstrate that our framework surpasses the previous SOTA in capturing the annotators' individual perspectives with as little as 25% of the original annotation budget on two datasets. Furthermore, our framework results in more equitable models, reducing the performance disparity among annotators.

A Multi-Perspective Machine Learning Approach to Evaluate Police-Driver Interaction in Los Angeles

Interactions between the government officials and civilians affect public wellbeing and the state legitimacy that is necessary for the functioning of democratic society. Police officers, the most visible and contacted agents of the state, interact with the public more than 20 million times a year during traffic stops. Today, these interactions are regularly recorded by body-worn cameras (BWCs), which are lauded as a means to enhance police accountability and improve police-public interactions. However, the timely analysis of these recordings is hampered by a lack of reliable automated tools that can enable the analysis of these complex and contested police-public interactions. This article proposes an approach to developing new multi-perspective, multimodal machine learning (ML) tools to analyze the audio, video, and transcript information from this BWC footage. Our approach begins by identifying the aspects of communication most salient to different stakeholders, including both community members and police officers. We move away from modeling approaches built around the existence of a single ground truth and instead utilize new advances in soft labeling to incorporate variation in how different observers perceive the same interactions. We argue that this inclusive approach to the conceptualization and design of new ML tools is broadly applicable to the study of communication and development of analytic tools across domains of human interaction, including education, medicine, and the workplace.

Towards a Unified Framework for Adaptable Problematic Content Detection via Continual Learning

Detecting problematic content, such as hate speech, is a multifaceted and ever-changing task, influenced by social dynamics, user populations, diversity of sources, and evolving language. There has been significant efforts, both in academia and in industry, to develop annotated resources that capture various aspects of problematic content. Due to researchers' diverse objectives, the annotations are inconsistent and hence, reports of progress on detection of problematic content are fragmented. This pattern is expected to persist unless we consolidate resources considering the dynamic nature of the problem. We propose integrating the available resources, and leveraging their dynamic nature to break this pattern. In this paper, we introduce a continual learning benchmark and framework for problematic content detection comprising over 84 related tasks encompassing 15 annotation schemas from 8 sources. Our benchmark creates a novel measure of progress: prioritizing the adaptability of classifiers to evolving tasks over excelling in specific tasks. To ensure the continuous relevance of our framework, we designed it so that new tasks can easily be integrated into the benchmark. Our baseline results demonstrate the potential of continual learning in capturing the evolving content and adapting to novel manifestations of problematic content.

Social-Group-Agnostic Word Embedding Debiasing via the Stereotype Content Model

Existing word embedding debiasing methods require social-group-specific word pairs (e.g., "man"-"woman") for each social attribute (e.g., gender), which cannot be used to mitigate bias for other social groups, making these methods impractical or costly to incorporate understudied social groups in debiasing. We propose that the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), a theoretical framework developed in social psychology for understanding the content of stereotypes, which structures stereotype content along two psychological dimensions - "warmth" and "competence" - can help debiasing efforts to become social-group-agnostic by capturing the underlying connection between bias and stereotypes. Using only pairs of terms for warmth (e.g., "genuine"-"fake") and competence (e.g.,"smart"-"stupid"), we perform debiasing with established methods and find that, across gender, race, and age, SCM-based debiasing performs comparably to group-specific debiasing

The Moral Foundations Reddit Corpus

Moral framing and sentiment can affect a variety of online and offline behaviors, including donation, pro-environmental action, political engagement, and even participation in violent protests. Various computational methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have been used to detect moral sentiment from textual data, but in order to achieve better performances in such subjective tasks, large sets of hand-annotated training data are needed. Previous corpora annotated for moral sentiment have proven valuable, and have generated new insights both within NLP and across the social sciences, but have been limited to Twitter. To facilitate improving our understanding of the role of moral rhetoric, we present the Moral Foundations Reddit Corpus, a collection of 16,123 Reddit comments that have been curated from 12 distinct subreddits, hand-annotated by at least three trained annotators for 8 categories of moral sentiment (i.e., Care, Proportionality, Equality, Purity, Authority, Loyalty, Thin Morality, Implicit/Explicit Morality) based on the updated Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) framework. We use a range of methodologies to provide baseline moral-sentiment classification results for this new corpus, e.g., cross-domain classification and knowledge transfer.

Hate Speech Classifiers Learn Human-Like Social Stereotypes

Social stereotypes negatively impact individuals' judgements about different groups and may have a critical role in how people understand language directed toward minority social groups. Here, we assess the role of social stereotypes in the automated detection of hateful language by examining the relation between individual annotator biases and erroneous classification of texts by hate speech classifiers. Specifically, in Study 1 we investigate the impact of novice annotators' stereotypes on their hate-speech-annotation behavior. In Study 2 we examine the effect of language-embedded stereotypes on expert annotators' aggregated judgements in a large annotated corpus. Finally, in Study 3 we demonstrate how language-embedded stereotypes are associated with systematic prediction errors in a neural-network hate speech classifier. Our results demonstrate that hate speech classifiers learn human-like biases which can further perpetuate social inequalities when propagated at scale. This framework, combining social psychological and computational linguistic methods, provides insights into additional sources of bias in hate speech moderation, informing ongoing debates regarding fairness in machine learning.

Improving Counterfactual Generation for Fair Hate Speech Detection

Bias mitigation approaches reduce models' dependence on sensitive features of data, such as social group tokens (SGTs), resulting in equal predictions across the sensitive features. In hate speech detection, however, equalizing model predictions may ignore important differences among targeted social groups, as hate speech can contain stereotypical language specific to each SGT. Here, to take the specific language about each SGT into account, we rely on counterfactual fairness and equalize predictions among counterfactuals, generated by changing the SGTs. Our method evaluates the similarity in sentence likelihoods (via pre-trained language models) among counterfactuals, to treat SGTs equally only within interchangeable contexts. By applying logit pairing to equalize outcomes on the restricted set of counterfactuals for each instance, we improve fairness metrics while preserving model performance on hate speech detection.

Fair Hate Speech Detection through Evaluation of Social Group Counterfactuals

Approaches for mitigating bias in supervised models are designed to reduce models' dependence on specific sensitive features of the input data, e.g., mentioned social groups. However, in the case of hate speech detection, it is not always desirable to equalize the effects of social groups because of their essential role in distinguishing outgroup-derogatory hate, such that particular types of hateful rhetoric carry the intended meaning only when contextualized around certain social group tokens. Counterfactual token fairness for a mentioned social group evaluates the model's predictions as to whether they are the same for (a) the actual sentence and (b) a counterfactual instance, which is generated by changing the mentioned social group in the sentence. Our approach assures robust model predictions for counterfactuals that imply similar meaning as the actual sentence. To quantify the similarity of a sentence and its counterfactual, we compare their likelihood score calculated by generative language models. By equalizing model behaviors on each sentence and its counterfactuals, we mitigate bias in the proposed model while preserving the overall classification performance.