In this paper, we examine the collaborative dynamics between humansand language models (LMs), where the interactions typically involveLMs proposing text segments and humans editing or responding to theseproposals. Productive engagement with LMs in such scenarios necessitates that humans discern effective text-based interaction strategies, such as editing and response styles, from historical human-LM interactions. This objective is inherently causal, driven by the counterfactual ‘what-if’ question: how would the outcome of collaboration change if humans employed a different text editing/refinement strategy? A key challenge in answering this causal inference question is formulating an appropriate causal estimand: the conventional average treatment effect (ATE) estimand is inapplicable to text-based treatments due to their high dimensionality. To address this concern, we introduce a new causal estimand– *Incremental Stylistic Effect (ISE)*, which characterizes the average impact of infinitesimally shifting a text towards a specific style, such as increasing formality. We establish the conditions for the non-parametric identification of ISE. Building on this, we develop *CausalCollab*, an algorithm designed to estimate the ISE of various interaction strategies in dynamic human-LM collaborations. Our empirical investigations across three distinct human-LM collaboration scenarios reveal that *CausalCollab* effectively reduces confounding and significantly improves counterfactual estimation over a set of competitive baselines.

Document-level text simplification often deletes some sentences besides performing lexical, grammatical or structural simplification to reduce text complexity. In this work, we focus on sentence deletions for text simplification and use a news genre-specific functional discourse structure, which categorizes sentences based on their contents and their function roles in telling a news story, for predicting sentence deletion. We incorporate sentence categories into a neural net model in two ways for predicting sentence deletions, either as additional features or by jointly predicting sentence deletions and sentence categories. Experimental results using human-annotated data show that incorporating the functional structure improves the recall of sentence deletion prediction by 6.5% and 10.7% respectively using the two methods, and improves the overall F1-score by 3.6% and 4.3% respectively.

Reddit is home to a broad spectrum of political activity, and users signal their political affiliations in multiple ways—from self-declarations to community participation. Frequently, computational studies have treated political users as a single bloc, both in developing models to infer political leaning and in studying political behavior. Here, we test this assumption of political users and show that commonly-used political-inference models do not generalize, indicating heterogeneous types of political users. The models remain imprecise at best for most users, regardless of which sources of data or methods are used. Across a 14-year longitudinal analysis, we demonstrate that the choice in definition of a political user has significant implications for behavioral analysis. Controlling for multiple factors, political users are more toxic on the platform and inter-party interactions are even more toxic—but not all political users behave this way. Last, we identify a subset of political users who repeatedly flip affiliations, showing that these users are the most controversial of all, acting as provocateurs by more frequently bringing up politics, and are more likely to be banned, suspended, or deleted.