Designing Synthetic Discussion Generation Systems: A Case Study for Online Facilitation

Dimitris Tsirmpas, Ion Androutsopoulos, John Pavlopoulos · Mar 13, 2025 · Citations: 0

Simulation Env

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

A critical challenge in social science research is the high cost associated with experiments involving human participants. We identify Synthetic Discussion Generation (SDG), a novel Natural Language Processing (NLP) direction aimed at creating simulated discussions that enable cost-effective pilot experiments and develop a theoretical, task-agnostic framework for designing, evaluating, and implementing these simulations. We argue that the use of proprietary models such as the OpenAI GPT family for such experiments is often unjustified in terms of both cost and capability, despite its prevalence in current research. Our experiments demonstrate that smaller quantized models (7B-8B) can produce effective simulations at a cost more than 44 times lower compared to their proprietary counterparts. We use our framework in the context of online facilitation, where humans actively engage in discussions to improve them, unlike more conventional content moderation. By treating this problem as a downstream task for our framework, we show that synthetic simulations can yield generalizable results at least by revealing limitations before engaging human discussants. In LLM facilitators, a critical limitation is that they are unable to determine when to intervene in a discussion, leading to undesirable frequent interventions and, consequently, derailment patterns similar to those observed in human interactions. Additionally, we find that different facilitation strategies influence conversational dynamics to some extent. Beyond our theoretical SDG framework, we also present a cost-comparison methodology for experimental design, an exploration of available models and algorithms, an open-source Python framework, and a large, publicly available dataset of LLM-generated discussions across multiple models.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.