Revising Context, Shifting Simulated Stance: Auditing LLM-Based Stance Simulation in Online Discussions

Hugging Face Daily Papers Papers

Summary

This paper studies how LLM-based stance simulation in online discussions is sensitive to counterfactual revisions of conversational context, and proposes an auditing framework comparing text-only and multimodal strategies.

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate social media users and infer how individuals may respond to online discussions. However, it remains unclear whether these simulations reflect precise user-specific beliefs or whether they are highly sensitive to semantically independent changes in conversational contexts. In this work, we study counterfactual context revision as a framework for auditing LLM-based stance simulation. Given an original online conversation, we first infer a target user's stance toward a specific topic. We then apply controlled revision strategies to the conversational context and simulate the user's stance again under the revised context. We compare text-only revision strategies with a multimodal one that incorporates meme-based context and evaluate two main effectiveness metrics, i.e., average directional stance shift and stance transition rate. The results reveal effective and robust stance transitions in both text-only and multimodal strategies across different polarization-preference mechanisms. Our study contributes an evaluation framework for understanding the context sensitivity of LLM-based stance simulation. More broadly, it highlights both the promise and risk of using LLMs to simulate online opinion dynamics.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 06/05/26, 02:08 PM

Paper page - Revising Context, Shifting Simulated Stance: Auditing LLM-Based Stance Simulation in Online Discussions

Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2606.06443

Abstract

LLM-based stance simulation exhibits context sensitivity when subjected to counterfactual revisions, with both text-only and multimodal approaches showing robust stance transitions across different polarization mechanisms.

Large language modelsare increasingly used to simulate social media users and infer how individuals may respond to online discussions. However, it remains unclear whether these simulations reflect precise user-specific beliefs or whether they are highly sensitive to semantically independent changes inconversational contexts. In this work, we studycounterfactual context revisionas a framework for auditing LLM-basedstance simulation. Given an original online conversation, we first infer a target user’s stance toward a specific topic. We then apply controlled revision strategies to theconversational contextand simulate the user’s stance again under the revised context. We compare text-only revision strategies with a multimodal one that incorporates meme-based context and evaluate two main effectiveness metrics, i.e., average directional stance shift andstance transition rate. The results reveal effective and robust stance transitions in both text-only and multimodal strategies across differentpolarization-preference mechanisms. Our study contributes an evaluation framework for understanding the context sensitivity of LLM-basedstance simulation. More broadly, it highlights both the promise and risk of using LLMs to simulate online opinion dynamics.

View arXiv pageView PDFAdd to collection

Models citing this paper0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.06443 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.06443 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.06443 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.

Similar Articles

Are you speaking my languages? On spoken language adherence in multimodal LLMs

arXiv cs.CL

This paper addresses the problem of spoken language adherence in multimodal LLMs for ASR, proposing a soft prompting approach and novel metric to quantify language violations. It evaluates three mitigation strategies—zero-shot prompting, supervised fine-tuning, and chain-of-thought reasoning—across multiple languages to improve transcription fidelity.