Comparing human and LLM politeness strategies in free production

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09391v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 04:44:46 GMT
• Title: Comparing human and LLM politeness strategies in free production
• Authors: Haoran Zhao, Robert D. Hawkins,
• Abstract summary: Polite speech poses a fundamental alignment challenge for large language models (LLMs)<n>We investigate whether LLMs employ a similarly context-sensitive repertoire by comparing human and LLM responses in both constrained and open-ended production tasks.<n>We find that larger models successfully replicate key preferences from the computational pragmatics literature, and human evaluators surprisingly prefer LLM-generated responses in open-ended contexts.
• Score: 8.709788354490238
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Polite speech poses a fundamental alignment challenge for large language models (LLMs). Humans deploy a rich repertoire of linguistic strategies to balance informational and social goals -- from positive approaches that build rapport (compliments, expressions of interest) to negative strategies that minimize imposition (hedging, indirectness). We investigate whether LLMs employ a similarly context-sensitive repertoire by comparing human and LLM responses in both constrained and open-ended production tasks. We find that larger models ($\ge$70B parameters) successfully replicate key preferences from the computational pragmatics literature, and human evaluators surprisingly prefer LLM-generated responses in open-ended contexts. However, further linguistic analyses reveal that models disproportionately rely on negative politeness strategies even in positive contexts, potentially leading to misinterpretations. While modern LLMs demonstrate an impressive handle on politeness strategies, these subtle differences raise important questions about pragmatic alignment in AI systems.

Related papers

• Evaluating Large language models on Understanding Korean indirect Speech acts [0.6757476692230009]
  This study evaluates whether current LLMs can understand the intention of an utterance by considering the given conversational context.<n> proprietary models exhibited relatively higher performance compared to open-source models.<n>Most LLMs, except for Claude3-Opus, demonstrated significantly lower performance in understanding indirect speech acts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T04:59:19Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes.<n>This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Walking in Others' Shoes: How Perspective-Taking Guides Large Language Models in Reducing Toxicity and Bias [16.85625861663094]
  Motivated by social psychology principles, we propose a novel strategy named textscPeT that inspires LLMs to integrate diverse human perspectives and self-regulate their responses. Rigorous evaluations and ablation studies are conducted on two commercial LLMs and three open-source LLMs, revealing textscPeT's superiority in producing less harmful responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T04:25:01Z)
• A Survey on Human Preference Learning for Large Language Models [81.41868485811625]
  The recent surge of versatile large language models (LLMs) largely depends on aligning increasingly capable foundation models with human intentions by preference learning. This survey covers the sources and formats of preference feedback, the modeling and usage of preference signals, as well as the evaluation of the aligned LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T03:52:51Z)
• Advancing Annotation of Stance in Social Media Posts: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and Crowd Sourcing [2.936331223824117]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated text annotation in social media posts has garnered significant interest. We analyze the performance of eight open-source and proprietary LLMs for annotating the stance expressed in social media posts. A significant finding of our study is that the explicitness of text expressing a stance plays a critical role in how faithfully LLMs' stance judgments match humans'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T17:26:07Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Nash Learning from Human Feedback [86.09617990412941]
  We introduce an alternative pipeline for the fine-tuning of large language models using pairwise human feedback. We term this approach Nash learning from human feedback (NLHF) We present a novel algorithmic solution, Nash-MD, founded on the principles of mirror descent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T19:26:23Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Re-Reading Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [87.46256176508376]
  We introduce a simple, yet general and effective prompting method, Re2, to enhance the reasoning capabilities of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike most thought-eliciting prompting methods, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Re2 shifts the focus to the input by processing questions twice, thereby enhancing the understanding process. We evaluate Re2 on extensive reasoning benchmarks across 14 datasets, spanning 112 experiments, to validate its effectiveness and generality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T14:36:23Z)
• Automatically Correcting Large Language Models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies [104.32199881187607]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide array of NLP tasks. A promising approach to rectify these flaws is self-correction, where the LLM itself is prompted or guided to fix problems in its own output. This paper presents a comprehensive review of this emerging class of techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T18:38:52Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)
• The Goldilocks of Pragmatic Understanding: Fine-Tuning Strategy Matters for Implicature Resolution by LLMs [26.118193748582197]
  We evaluate four categories of widely used state-of-the-art models. We find that, despite only evaluating on utterances that require a binary inference, models in three of these categories perform close to random. These results suggest that certain fine-tuning strategies are far better at inducing pragmatic understanding in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-26T19:04:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.