From Moderation to Mediation: Can LLMs Serve as Mediators in Online Flame Wars?

Abdullah Alnaibari; Arslan Bisharat; Dawei Li; Deborah Hall; Huan Liu; Manuel Sandoval; Yasin Silva

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 20 references

From Moderation to Mediation: Can LLMs Serve as Mediators in Online Flame Wars?

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that large language models can act as online mediators—not just moderators—by judging the fairness and emotional dynamics of a flame war and then generating an empathetic message that de-escalates it, with commercial API m

desk verdict Useful framework and dataset, but the de-escalation claim is built on an unvalidated LLM simulator and a missing baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.03005 v6 pith:CCVVNYHO submitted 2025-12-02 cs.AI

Dawei Li , Abdullah Alnaibari , Arslan Bisharat , Manuel Sandoval , Deborah Hall , Yasin Silva , Huan Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords largelanguagemodelsonlinemediationflamewarsconflictde-escalationLLM-as-judgeusersimulationtoxicityreductionhuman-LLMcomparison

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether large language models can do more than delete hostile comments: can they intervene mid-conflict as mediators? It splits the task into judgment—reading a thread to spot unfairness, emotional triggers, and escalation points—and steering—writing a calm, empathetic message that redirects the conversation. Using a large dataset of real flame-war threads, the authors score model interventions with human-verified principles, simulate how participants might reply after a mediation, and compare machine interventions with human-written ones. They find that commercially hosted models consistently score higher than open-source ones, that mediated threads show less toxicity and fewer exclamation points in simulation, and that machine interventions are more neutral but less readable and less directly personal than human ones. The point of asking is practical: if LLMs can de-escalate rather than just censor, online platforms gain a tool that repairs conflict instead of suppressing it.

What carries the argument

The framework's central object is the two-part mediation task: judgment (the model produces an interpretive summary identifying unfair claims, emotional triggers, and escalation points) and steering (the model generates an empathetic, context-aware message intended to de-escalate). Carrying the argument is a three-stage evaluation pipeline: (1) an LLM-as-judge scoring system built from conversation-specific principles that are merged from multiple models and human-verified; (2) a user simulator that inserts the mediation into a real thread and predicts how participants would respond, allowing before/after comparison on toxicity, capitalization, exclamation, and argumentativeness; (3) a compa

What would settle it

Run a controlled live study: randomly insert the same LLM mediations into real conflict threads on an online platform (or in a lab setting with real participants) and measure the toxicity of subsequent messages against a control condition without mediation. If no reliable reduction appears, the simulation-based outcome claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLMs can serve as mediators in online flame wars, not merely as moderators, and that mediation quality can be decomposed, measured, and improved. At the heart of the paper is the finding that judgment and steering performances are strongly correlated across all twelve tested models, suggesting a unified mediation competence. The paper also claims that the mediation process reduces toxicity and emotional intensity (measured by exclamation marks and capitalization) in simulated post-intervention threads, while having little effect on argumentativeness. Finally, it asserts that API-based models outperform open-source models on both subtasks, and that LLM-generated medi

Load-bearing premise

The paper's claim that mediation reduces toxicity and emotional intensity depends on a single small language model that was prompted to play the role of the angry users; the simulator's behavior was never checked against real human responses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the finding holds, platform moderators could be complemented by mediator agents that generate real-time de-escalation messages instead of removing content.
Because judgment and steering scores are strongly correlated, improving a model's conflict understanding (e.g., by training on mediation data) should also improve its intervention messages.
The weak effect on argumentativeness suggests that current mediators can cool tone but not resolve the underlying disagreement—an important limit.
The systematic readability gap between LLM and human mediations indicates that current models would need to sound less bureaucratic before being trusted in sensitive live conversations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The toxicity-reduction numbers are only as credible as the user simulator; validating the simulator against real human replies (e.g., in a deployed A/B test) is the natural next step and would either strengthen or overturn the outcome claim.
Because the paper shows API models lead mostly by alignment and instruction-following, fine-tuning open-source models on high-quality human mediations might close the gap more cheaply than relying on commercial APIs.
A testable extension: measure whether mediators trained to ask questions (humans show higher question rate) produce longer-lasting de-escalation than the more assertive, formal style current LLMs favor.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth knowing: this paper gives you a clean decomposition of LLM mediation into judgment and steering, plus a new 737-thread Reddit dataset of flame wars. The evaluation pipeline is ambitious, and the comparative analysis against human mediators is a nice idea. But don't quote the headline claim that mediation “reduces toxicity and emotional intensity”—the evidence for it is thin.

The strongest part is the framing and dataset. Splitting mediation into separate reasoning and generation tasks is reasonable, and the dataset could be useful to others. The finding that API models outperform open-source ones is plausible and consistent across tables, though it rests on LLM-as-judge. The human comparison with effect sizes (e.g., LLMs less readable, more formal) is a genuine attempt to ground the work.

The soft spots are serious but addressable. First, Table 3 shows only post-mediation numbers for open-source models; there is no original-thread baseline. The text claims a “reduction in toxicity” but you cannot see the before/after comparison. That is a direct gap. Second, the user simulator is the load-bearing piece for the outcome claim, and it is not validated against any real human response. Worse, the paper contradicts itself on which model was used: Section 5.2 says Qwen3-4B, Section 6.1 says LLaMA-3-8B. That inconsistency undercuts confidence in every downstream number. Third, no error bars or significance tests are reported, so differences like 8.11 vs 8.40 are hard to interpret.

These are not fatal flaws in the core idea—they are fixable with baseline numbers, simulator validation, a resolved model choice, and basic statistics. The bigger worry is that the outcome claim may be an artifact of one LLM talking to itself, but that is precisely what the missing baseline and simulator validation would reveal.

I would send this to peer review because the framework and dataset deserve referee attention. The authors should be asked to release data and prompts, add the baseline, validate the simulator against human behavior, and reconcile the model inconsistency before the findings are taken at face value. Readers in AI-for-social-good and online moderation will find the framing useful, but should treat the de-escalation result as unproven.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for LLM-based online conflict mediation, decomposing the task into judgment (evaluating fairness and emotional dynamics of a conversation) and steering (generating empathetic, de-escalatory responses). The authors construct a Reddit dataset of 737 flame-war threads, run twelve open-source and API-based LLMs through the framework, and evaluate them with three methods: principle-based LLM-as-a-judge scoring, a user-simulation comparison between original and intervened threads, and a comparative analysis against human-written mediations. The central claims are that API-based models outperform open-source models on both judgment and steering, and that mediation successfully reduces toxicity and emotional intensity in simulated interactions.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would offer a useful task formulation, a new dataset of real online flame wars, and a potentially reusable evaluation pipeline for studying LLMs as mediators rather than moderators. Strengths include the use of real Reddit conflict threads, a multi-stage evaluation design, human verification of the generated evaluation principles, and direct comparison with human mediation outputs. However, the paper's main outcome claim—that mediation reduces toxicity and emotional intensity—rests on an unvalidated LLM user simulator and on a table that lacks the original-thread baseline needed to verify any reduction. The principle-based leaderboard, while innovative, is also heavily LLM-driven, and no reliability statistics are reported. The significance is therefore conditional on substantial additional validation.

major comments (5)

[§5.2, §6.1, Table 3] The claimed de-escalation effect is not supported by the displayed data. Table 3 reports Toxicity, Capitalization, Exclamation, and Argumentativeness values for six open-source models, but no corresponding original-thread (no-intervention) baseline is shown. The text in §6.3 interprets these numbers as a 'reduction' and claims the mediation 'successfully promotes more neutral and composed responses'; without a baseline column, the reader cannot verify that any reduction occurred. Additionally, the simulator model is named inconsistently: §5.2 says Qwen3-4B, while §6.1 says 'For both the judgment model and the user-simulator model, we use LLaMA-3-8B'—and Table 3 lists LLaMA-3.1-8B. Please specify the simulator, add the baselines, and report paired differences rather than absolute post-intervention rates.
[§5.2, §6.3] The user simulator is unvalidated. The intervened threads are generated by prompting an LLM to continue a conversation after a mediator's message, and this simulated continuation is then compared to the original thread. No evidence is provided that this 4B/8B LLM reproduces how actual Reddit users respond to mediation; without such validation, the toxicity and exclamation reductions may be an artifact of the simulator echoing the mediator's calm tone. The paper should either validate the simulator against human response data (e.g., held-out human continuations) or explicitly weaken the claim from 'mediation reduces hostility' to 'mediation reduces hostility in one particular LLM simulation'.
[§5.1, §6.2, Table 2] The principle-based evaluation is largely self-referential. Principles are proposed by GPT-5, Gemini-2.5, and Claude-4.5; merged by GPT-4.1; human-verified; and then scored by an LLM judge on LLM-generated mediations. While the human verification step is valuable, the final scores (Table 2) are LLM judgments of LLM outputs, and no inter-annotator agreement or human validation of the scores is reported. The observed API-over-open-source gap (e.g., GPT-5.1 at 8.36 vs. Qwen3-8B at 8.23) could partly reflect judge bias toward the API models' style. Please report agreement between the LLM judge and human evaluators on a sample, and provide per-thread variance or confidence intervals for the scores.
[Table 2, Table 3] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported anywhere in the experimental sections. Differences as small as 0.1–0.2 on a 10-point scale (Table 2) are interpreted as meaningful ranking distinctions, and the simulation metrics in Table 3 are given to two decimal places without variance. At minimum, the paper should report standard deviations across threads and run a paired significance test (or a bootstrap confidence interval) before claiming that API models 'consistently outperform' open-source models.
[§5.3, §6.4, Figs. 4–5] The comparative analysis against human mediation lacks essential details. The paper does not state how many human mediations were used, how they were matched to the newly collected threads, whether the human data cover the same subreddits and time period, or what the sample size is for each Cohen's d in Fig. 5. The large effect sizes (e.g., d≈–2.04 for Flesch reading ease) are presented without confidence intervals or any test of whether the two distributions are statistically distinguishable. This limits the interpretability of the 'LLMs are less readable and less dialogic' conclusion.

minor comments (4)

[§4] The selection pipeline (ChatGPT for community selection, Gemini-2.5 for post scoring and target-user identification) has no validation against human annotations. If the automated post score threshold (7–10) or the target-user identification is noisy, the dataset composition may be affected. At least a small human validation sample should be reported.
[§5.2] The notation is confusing: the mediation output is defined as S(G) in §3, but here the simulator is said to insert 'J(G) or S(G)'. Inserting a judgment representation into a thread is not the same as inserting a mediation message; please clarify what is actually inserted.
[Fig. 1] The 'Python' label in the pipeline diagram is unexplained. Also, Fig. 2 presents scores as percentages (e.g., 'above 84%') while Table 2 reports them on a 10-point scale; please make the conversion explicit.
[§6.3] The definitions of the simulation metrics are vague: 'Toxicity measures the rate of negative lexicon', 'Capitalization reflects excessive uppercase ratio', and 'Argumentativeness measures disagreement vs. politeness balance'. Please specify the lexicons, the normalization, and the exact computation for each metric.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: de-escalation outcome is measured by a user simulator that is (per Section 5.2) the same Qwen3-4B model being evaluated.

other [Section 5.2 (User Simulation Result) and Section 6.1 (Experiment Setting)]
"Given an original discussion thread G, the simulator (here we use Qwen3-4B as the simulator model) generates an intervened thread G′ by inserting a model-generated mediation output J(G) or S(G) at an appropriate turn. The simulator then predicts the subsequent user responses conditioned on both G and J(G)/S(G) / The open-source group includes LLaMA-3.2-3B, LLaMA-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3-4B, and Qwen3-8B. / For both the judgment model and the user-simulator model, we use LLaMA-3-8B"

Section 5.2 names Qwen3-4B as the user simulator, and Section 6.1 lists Qwen3-4B among the evaluated mediator models. Thus for Qwen3-4B, the same model writes the mediation and then simulates the 'user responses' used to measure toxicity/exclamation reduction in Section 6.3; the claimed de-escalation is an intra-model continuation rather than independent behavioral evidence. Section 6.1 later names LLaMA-3-8B as the simulator, and no human validation anchors either simulator. Table 3 lacks the original-thread baseline invoked by the text. The 'prediction' of calmer responses is therefore produced by the very system whose mediation is being assessed, not measured against an external ground truth.

full rationale

The API-vs-open-source ranking (Table 2) is based on principle-based scoring and is not circular in the strict sense: the principles are generated by LLMs but then human-verified, and the judge is an LLM but not shown to be the same as the evaluated models. That part of the evaluation has independent content. However, the de-escalation claim in Section 6.3 is partially circular: the user simulator is (in Section 5.2) Qwen3-4B, which is also one of the mediator models being evaluated, so the 'post-intervention user responses' are generated by the same model that produced the mediation. Section 6.1 contradicts this by naming LLaMA-3-8B as the simulator, and neither simulator is validated against human behavior. The paper itself acknowledges that 'models behave differently when generating both sides of an interaction versus responding to real user input,' which undercuts the ecological validity of the simulated de-escalation. The self-citation [7] to the LLM-as-judge survey is not load-bearing because the paradigm is independently established and the paper adds human verification of principles. Overall, one central piece of evidence (the de-escalation effect) reduces to a self-referential LLM-to-LLM loop, while the main ranking retains independent content, hence a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in the classical sense, but several hand-chosen thresholds and LLM-generated selection criteria are load-bearing for the dataset and evaluation. The axioms are the unvalidated LLM-judgment and simulation assumptions that the entire empirical pipeline depends on. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the judgment/steering decomposition is a task framing, not an invented entity.

free parameters (4)

Gemini-2.5 flame-war score threshold = >= 7 on 0-10 scale
Posts scoring below 7 are discarded entirely; this hand-chosen cutoff shapes the dataset and all downstream evaluations (§4).
Number of target users per thread = 2
Only the two users with the most flame-war interactions are selected; other conflicts are excluded, biasing threads toward bipolar disputes (§4).
Principle count per model = 5–10
Each LLM proposes five to ten principles per conversation; the hand-picked range determines the granularity of the evaluation checklist (§5.1).
Toxicity/argumentativeness metric thresholds = unreported
Definitions such as 'rate of negative lexicon', 'excessive uppercase ratio', and 'disagreement vs. politeness balance' are given without thresholds or lexicons; results cannot be reproduced or compared to baseline (§6.3).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Gemini-2.5's scores correctly identify flame-war posts and the most flame-war-involved users.
Dataset selection in §4 is done by Gemini-2.5 without human validation, yet it determines all 737 threads.
domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge output (J_eval(P(G), S(G))) accurately measures mediation quality.
§5.1 uses LLM judges without calibration against human ratings of mediation outputs; only the principle checklist is human-verified.
domain assumption The user simulator faithfully models how real users respond to mediation.
§5.2 uses Qwen3-4B (or LLaMA-3-8B per §6.1) to simulate both sides of the intervened conversation; no real-user validation is provided.
domain assumption Reference [19] contains valid human-written mediation examples suitable as a gold standard.
§5.3 relies on the cited multilingual content-moderation dataset for human mediation; the paper does not verify the nature or annotator instructions of that dataset.
domain assumption Human annotator verification of principles ensures principle quality.
Three annotators keep/edit/delete principles in §5.1, but no inter-annotator agreement is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Moderation to Mediation: Can LLMs Serve as Mediators in Online Flame Wars?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCVVNYHO

@misc{pith2026251203005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Moderation to Mediation: Can LLMs Serve as Mediators in Online Flame Wars?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCVVNYHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.03005}
}

read the original abstract

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has opened new possibilities for AI for good applications. As LLMs increasingly mediate online communication, their potential to foster empathy and constructive dialogue becomes an important frontier for responsible AI research. This work explores whether LLMs can serve not only as moderators that detect harmful content, but as mediators capable of understanding and de-escalating online conflicts. Our framework decomposes mediation into two subtasks: judgment, where an LLM evaluates the fairness and emotional dynamics of a conversation, and steering, where it generates empathetic, de-escalatory messages to guide participants toward resolution. To assess mediation quality, we construct a large Reddit-based dataset and propose a multi-stage evaluation pipeline combining principle-based scoring, user simulation, and human comparison. Experiments show that API-based models outperform open-source counterparts in both reasoning and intervention alignment when doing mediation. Our findings highlight both the promise and limitations of current LLMs as emerging agents for online social mediation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.03005 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The overview pipeline of our data collection and mediation evaluation process. r/atheism, r/BlackLivesMatter, r/football, and r/technology. Descriptive statistic summarizing the sampled subreddits can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** LLM mediation performance leaderboard, averaged on judgment and steering. 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Judgment Performance 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Steering Performance Qwen3-1.7B Qwen3-4B Qwen3-8B Llama-3.1-8B Llama-3.2-3B Claude 3.5-Haiku Claude 4.5-Haiku Claude 4.5-Sonnet GPT-4.1 GPT-5 GPT-5.1 Open-source models API-based models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Relationship between judgment and steering scores across models. Steering and judgment performances are strongly correlated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Effect sizes of model–human differences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Distributions of linguistic and interactional metrics. decreased readability (Flesch d ≈ –2.0), indicating that human mediations remain considerably more accessible to readers. Human texts further display higher lexical diversity and stronger dialogic engagement, evi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02554 (2023)

Gao, M., Ruan, J., Sun, R., Yin, X., Yang, S., Wan, X.: Human-like summarization evaluation with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02554 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[2]

NPJ Digital Medicine8(2025), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278235350

Hua, Y., Na, H., Li, Z., Liu, F., Fang, X., Clifton, D.A., Torous, J.B.: A scoping review of large language models for generative tasks in mental health care. NPJ Digital Medicine8(2025), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278235350

2025
[3]

American Psychologist39(10), 1123–1134 (1984)

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T.W.: Social psychological aspects of computer- mediated communication. American Psychologist39(10), 1123–1134 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123

work page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 1984
[4]

Journal of Information Technology & Politics19(2), 197–213 (2022)

Koiranen, I., Koivula, A., Malinen, S., Keipi, T.: Undercurrents of echo chambers and flame wars: Party political correlates of social media behav- ior. Journal of Information Technology & Politics19(2), 197–213 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1950095

arXiv 2022
[5]

Labrak, Y., Bazoge, A., Morin, E., Gourraud, P.A., Rouvier, M., Dufour, R.: Biomistral: A collection of open-source pretrained large language models for med- ical domains (2024)

2024
[6]

The Sociological Quarterly46(2), 385–403 (2005)

Lee, H.: Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. The Sociological Quarterly46(2), 385–403 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533- 8525.2005.00019.x

arXiv 2005
[7]

In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Li, D., Jiang, B., Huang, L., Beigi, A., Zhao, C., Tan, Z., Bhattacharjee, A., Jiang, Y., Chen, C., Wu, T., et al.: From generation to judgment: Opportunities and challenges of llm-as-a-judge. In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 2757–2791 (2025)

2025
[8]

In: 2024 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (AISP)

M, A., S, K., S, J., S J, A., K R, B.: Bio medical named entity recog- nition using large language models. In: 2024 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (AISP). pp. 01–06 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/AISP61711.2024.10870607

arXiv 2024

Show all 20 references

[9]

In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Madani, N., Srihari, R.K.: Esc-judge: A framework for comparing emotional sup- port conversational agents. In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 16059–16076 (2025)

2025
[10]

In: Proceedings of the 4th African Human Computer Interac- tion Conference

Masikisiki, B., Marivate, V., Hlophe, Y.: Investigating the efficacy of large language models in reflective assessment methods through chain of thought prompting. In: Proceedings of the 4th African Human Computer Interac- tion Conference. p. 44–49. AfriCHI ’23, Association for...

2024
[11]

Computers in Human Behavior26(6), 1536–1546 (2010)

Moor, P.J., Heuvelman, A., Verleur, R.: Flaming on youtube. Computers in Human Behavior26(6), 1536–1546 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.027

2010 doi
[12]

Inter- national Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education35(2), 559–586 (Jul 2024)

Morris, W., Holmes, L., Choi, J.S., Crossley, S.: Automated scoring of con- structed response items in math assessment using large language models. Inter- national Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education35(2), 559–586 (Jul 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-0041...

2024 doi
[13]

International Journal of Artificial Intel- ligence in Education35(2), 444–481 (Jun 2024)

Parker, M.J., Anderson, C., Stone, C., Oh, Y.: A large language model approach to educational survey feedback analysis. International Journal of Artificial Intel- ligence in Education35(2), 444–481 (Jun 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593- 024-00414-0, http://dx.doi.org/10.1...

2024 doi
[14]

European Review of Social Psychology6(1), 161–198 (1995)

Reicher, S.D., Spears, R., Postmes, T.: A social identity model of deindividua- tion phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology6(1), 161–198 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049

1995 doi
[15]

In: Pro- ceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1

Sarsa, S., Denny, P., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J.: Automatic generation of pro- gramming exercises and code explanations using large language models. In: Pro- ceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1. p. 27–43. ICER ’22, Associa...

2022
[16]

In: Rogers, A., Boyd-Graber, J., Okazaki, N

Scarlatos, A., Lan, A.: Tree-based representation and generation of natural and mathematical language. In: Rogers, A., Boyd-Graber, J., Okazaki, N. (eds.) Pro- ceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). pp. 3...

2023 doi
[17]

In: Proceedings of Recent Advances in Nat- ural Language Processing (RANLP)

Steinberger, J., Brychcín, T., Hercig, T., Krejzl, P.: Cross-lingual flames de- tection in news discussions. In: Proceedings of Recent Advances in Nat- ural Language Processing (RANLP). pp. 694–700. Varna, Bulgaria (2017). https://doi.org/10.26615/978-954-452-049-6_089

2017 doi
[18]

In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Xu, Y., Hu, J., Zhao, Z., Duan, Z., Sun, X., Yang, X.: Multiagentesc: A llm- based multi-agent collaboration framework for emotional support conversation. In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 4665–4681 (2025)

2025
[19]

In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Ye, M., Sikka, K., Atwell, K., Hassan, S., Divakaran, A., Alikhani, M.: Multilingual content moderation: A case study on reddit. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 3828–3844 (2023)

2023
[20]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging43(11), 3755–3766 (2024)

Zhao, Z., Wang, S., Gu, J., Zhu, Y., Mei, L., Zhuang, Z., Cui, Z., Wang, Q., Shen, D.: Chatcad+: Toward a universal and reliable interactive cad us- ing llms. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging43(11), 3755–3766 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2024.3398350

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02554 (2023)

Gao, M., Ruan, J., Sun, R., Yin, X., Yang, S., Wan, X.: Human-like summarization evaluation with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02554 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

NPJ Digital Medicine8(2025), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278235350

Hua, Y., Na, H., Li, Z., Liu, F., Fang, X., Clifton, D.A., Torous, J.B.: A scoping review of large language models for generative tasks in mental health care. NPJ Digital Medicine8(2025), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278235350

2025

[3] [3]

American Psychologist39(10), 1123–1134 (1984)

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T.W.: Social psychological aspects of computer- mediated communication. American Psychologist39(10), 1123–1134 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123

work page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 1984

[4] [4]

Journal of Information Technology & Politics19(2), 197–213 (2022)

Koiranen, I., Koivula, A., Malinen, S., Keipi, T.: Undercurrents of echo chambers and flame wars: Party political correlates of social media behav- ior. Journal of Information Technology & Politics19(2), 197–213 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1950095

arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Labrak, Y., Bazoge, A., Morin, E., Gourraud, P.A., Rouvier, M., Dufour, R.: Biomistral: A collection of open-source pretrained large language models for med- ical domains (2024)

2024

[6] [6]

The Sociological Quarterly46(2), 385–403 (2005)

Lee, H.: Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. The Sociological Quarterly46(2), 385–403 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533- 8525.2005.00019.x

arXiv 2005

[7] [7]

In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Li, D., Jiang, B., Huang, L., Beigi, A., Zhao, C., Tan, Z., Bhattacharjee, A., Jiang, Y., Chen, C., Wu, T., et al.: From generation to judgment: Opportunities and challenges of llm-as-a-judge. In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 2757–2791 (2025)

2025

[8] [8]

In: 2024 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (AISP)

M, A., S, K., S, J., S J, A., K R, B.: Bio medical named entity recog- nition using large language models. In: 2024 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (AISP). pp. 01–06 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/AISP61711.2024.10870607

arXiv 2024