mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Consistency of Responses and Continuations Generated by Large Language Models on Social Media

arXiv 2501.08102 ↗First posted 14 Jan 2025cs.CL cs.AI cs.HCcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities in text generation, yet their emotional consistency and semantic coherence in social media contexts remain insufficiently understood. This study investigates how LLMs handle emotional content and maintain semantic relationships through continuation and response tasks using three open-source models: Gemma, Llama3 and Llama3.3 and one commercial Model:Claude. By analyzing climate change discussions from Twitter and Reddit, we examine emotional transitions, intensity patterns, and semantic consistency between human-authored and LLM-generated content. Our findings reveal that while both models maintain high semantic coherence, they exhibit distinct emotional patterns: these models show a strong tendency to moderate negative emotions. When the input text carries negative emotions such as anger, disgust, fear, or sadness, LLM tends to generate content with more neutral emotions, or even convert them into positive emotions such as joy or surprise. At the same time, we compared the LLM-generated content with human-authored content. The four models systematically generated responses with reduced emotional intensity and showed a preference for neutral rational emotions in the response task. In addition, these models all maintained a high semantic similarity with the original text, although their performance in the continuation task and the response task was different. These findings provide deep insights into the emotion and semantic processing capabilities of LLM, which are of great significance for its deployment in social media environments and human-computer interaction design.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jan 2025.

Builds on

17 of 57 references.

References · 17

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  3. 2020The Pushshift Reddit Datasetcited by 289
  4. 2023Large Language Models Empowered Agent-based Modeling and Simulation: A Survey and Perspectivescited by 253
  5. 2023A Comprehensive Survey of AI-Generated Content (AIGC): A History of Generative AI from GAN to ChatGPTcited by 221
  6. 2020A Survey of Evaluation Metrics Used for NLG Systemscited by 164
  7. 2022Pretrained Language Models for Text Generation: A Surveycited by 121
  8. 2018Achieving Human Parity on Automatic Chinese to English News Translationcited by 119
  9. 2020Evolution of Semantic Similarity -- A Surveycited by 83
  10. 2024A Complete Survey on LLM-based AI Chatbotscited by 71
  11. 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
  12. 2024HelloBench: Evaluating Long Text Generation Capabilities of Large Language Modelscited by 42
5 more
  1. 2020On the Limitations of Cross-lingual Encoders as Exposed by Reference-Free Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 36
  2. 2024What Does the Bot Say? Opportunities and Risks of Large Language Models in Social Media Bot Detectioncited by 24
  3. 2015Measuring Emotional Contagion in Social Mediacited by 10
  4. 2024Context-Aware LLM Translation System Using Conversation Summarization and Dialogue Historycited by 7
  5. 2024Exploring Human-LLM Conversations: Mental Models and the Originator of Toxicitycited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 5.

7 papers.