Sentiment in social-media threads does not only vary across posts; it shifts as users react to claims, corrections, evidence, and hostility within a branching reply tree. We study why sentiment changes in rumor-centric conversation trees by treating discourse moves such as denial/correction, evidence/link provision, and toxicity/attack as candidate interventions and asking: (i) what sentiment a reply expresses, (ii) whether the sentiment shifts relative to its parent, and (iii) which prior message most plausibly drove the reply’s sentiment. To support this setting, we introduce CASIRE, a causal sentiment reasoning layer over public rumor conversation datasets that adds post-level sentiment labels, induced parent-child shift labels, calibrated multi-label intervention tags, and explicitly annotated causal-source labels. We then propose C³T, Counterfactual Causal Conversation Transformer, a thread-structured temporal model that jointly predicts node sentiment and shifts, learns sparse ancestor attribution, and supports counterfactual queries by forcing conversational intervention embeddings on or off to estimate potential outcomes. Under an event-level split, C³T improves out-of-event robustness and attribution over text-only, graph-based, and temporal baselines, and yields interpretable model-based effects: denials/corrections and evidence reduce downstream negativity, while toxicity increases it. We also benchmark open-weight LLM prompting baselines and find that added conversational context helps, but attribution remains less reliable, motivating structure-aware counterfactual modeling for social-media analysis.

The Political Compass Test (PCT) and similar surveys are commonly used to assess political bias in auto-regressive LLMs. Our rigorous statistical experiments show that while changes to standard generation parameters have minimal effect on PCT scores, prompt phrasing and fine-tuning individually and together can significantly influence results. Interestingly, fine-tuning on politically rich vs. neutral datasets does not lead to different shifts in scores. We also generalize these findings to a similar popular test called 8 Values. Humans do not change their responses to questions when prompted differently (“answer this question” vs “state your opinion”), or after exposure to politically neutral text, such as mathematical formulae. But the fact that the models do so raises concerns about the validity of these tests for measuring model bias, and paves the way for deeper exploration into how political and social views are encoded in LLMs.