Yuan Tian
Publications
Do LLM-Driven Agents Exhibit Engagement Mechanisms? Controlled Tests of Information Load, Descriptive Norms, and Popularity Cues
Large language models make agent-based simulation more behaviorally expressive, but they also sharpen a basic methodological tension: fluent, human-like output is not, by itself, evidence for theory. We evaluate what an LLM-driven simulation can credibly support using information engagement on social media as a test case. In a Weibo-like environment, we manipulate information load and descriptive norms, while allowing popularity cues (cumulative likes and Sina Weibo-style cumulative reshares) to evolve endogenously. We then ask whether simulated behavior changes in theoretically interpretable ways under these controlled variations, rather than merely producing plausible-looking traces. Engagement responds systematically to information load and descriptive norms, and sensitivity to popularity cues varies across contexts, indicating conditionality rather than rigid prompt compliance. We discuss methodological implications for simulation-based communication research, including multi-condition stress tests, explicit no-norm baselines because default prompts are not blank controls, and design choices that preserve endogenous feedback loops when studying bandwagon dynamics.
SafeSci: Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models in Science Domains and Beyond
The success of large language models (LLMs) in scientific domains has heightened safety concerns, prompting numerous benchmarks to evaluate their scientific safety. Existing benchmarks often suffer from limited risk coverage and a reliance on subjective evaluation. To address these problems, we introduce SafeSci, a comprehensive framework for safety evaluation and enhancement in scientific contexts. SafeSci comprises SafeSciBench, a multi-disciplinary benchmark with 0.25M samples, and SafeSciTrain, a large-scale dataset containing 1.5M samples for safety enhancement. SafeSciBench distinguishes between safety knowledge and risk to cover extensive scopes and employs objective metrics such as deterministically answerable questions to mitigate evaluation bias. We evaluate 24 advanced LLMs, revealing critical vulnerabilities in current models. We also observe that LLMs exhibit varying degrees of excessive refusal behaviors on safety-related issues. For safety enhancement, we demonstrate that fine-tuning on SafeSciTrain significantly enhances the safety alignment of models. Finally, we argue that knowledge is a double-edged sword, and determining the safety of a scientific question should depend on specific context, rather than universally categorizing it as safe or unsafe. Our work provides both a diagnostic tool and a practical resource for building safer scientific AI systems.