Explore the vast range of titles available.

Despite the increasing popularity of Bayesian inference in empirical research, few practical guidelines provide detailed recommendations for how to apply Bayesian procedures and interpret the results. Here we offer specific guidelines for four different stages of Bayesian statistical reasoning in a research setting: planning the analysis, executing the analysis, interpreting the results, and reporting the results. The guidelines for each stage are illustrated with a running example. Although the guidelines are geared towards analyses performed with the open-source statistical software JASP, most guidelines extend to Bayesian inference in general.

Social choice aggregation strategies have been proposed as an explainable way to generate recommendations to groups of users. However, it is not trivial to determine the best strategy to apply for a specific group. Previous work highlighted that the performance of a group recommender system is affected by the internal diversity of the group members’ preferences. However, few of them have empirically evaluated how the specific distribution of preferences in a group determines which strategy is the most effective. Furthermore, only a few studies evaluated the impact of providing explanations for the recommendations generated with social choice aggregation strategies, by evaluating explanations and aggregation strategies in a coupled way. To fill these gaps, we present two user studies (N=399 and N=288) examining the effectiveness of social choice aggregation strategies in terms of users’ fairness perception, consensus perception, and satisfaction. We study the impact of the level of (dis-)agreement within the group on the performance of these strategies. Furthermore, we investigate the added value of textual explanations of the underlying social choice aggregation strategy used to generate the recommendation. The results of both user studies show no benefits in using social choice-based explanations for group recommendations. However, we find significant differences in the effectiveness of the social choice-based aggregation strategies in both studies. Furthermore, the specific group configuration (i.e., various scenarios of internal diversity) seems to determine the most effective aggregation strategy. These results provide useful insights on how to select the appropriate aggregation strategy for a specific group based on the level of (dis-)agreement within the group members’ preferences.

Support or opposition concerning a debated claim such as abortion should be legal can have different underlying reasons, which we call perspectives. This paper explores how opinion mining can be enhanced with joint topic modeling, to identify distinct perspectives within the topic, providing an informative overview from unstructured text. We evaluate four joint topic models (TAM, JST, VODUM, and LAM) in a user study assessing human understandability of the extracted perspectives. Based on the results, we conclude that joint topic models such as TAM can discover perspectives that align with human judgments. Moreover, our results suggest that users are not influenced by their pre-existing stance on the topic of abortion when interpreting the output of topic models.

The way pages are ranked in search results influences whether the users of search engines are exposed to more homogeneous, or rather to more diverse viewpoints. However, this viewpoint diversity is not trivial to assess. In this paper we use existing and novel ranking fairness metrics to evaluate viewpoint diversity in search result rankings. We conduct a controlled simulation study that shows how ranking fairness metrics can be used for viewpoint diversity, how their outcome should be interpreted, and which metric is most suitable depending on the situation. This paper lays out important ground work for future research to measure and assess viewpoint diversity in real search result rankings.

The rapid entry of machine learning approaches in our daily activities and high-stakes domains demands transparency and scrutiny of their fairness and reliability. To help gauge machine learning models' robustness, research typically focuses on the massive datasets used for their deployment, e.g., creating and maintaining documentation for understanding their origin, process of development, and ethical considerations. However, data collection for AI is still typically a one-off practice, and oftentimes datasets collected for a certain purpose or application are reused for a different problem. Additionally, dataset annotations may not be representative over time, contain ambiguous or erroneous annotations, or be unable to generalize across issues or domains. Recent research has shown these practices might lead to unfair, biased, or inaccurate outcomes. We argue that data collection for AI should be performed in a responsible manner where the quality of the data is thoroughly scrutinized and measured through a systematic set of appropriate metrics. In this paper, we propose a Responsible AI (RAI) methodology designed to guide the data collection with a set of metrics for an iterative in-depth analysis of the factors influencing the quality and reliability of the generated data. We propose a granular set of measurements to inform on the internal reliability of a dataset and its external stability over time. We validate our approach across nine existing datasets and annotation tasks and four content modalities. This approach impacts the assessment of data robustness used for AI applied in the real world, where diversity of users and content is eminent. Furthermore, it deals with fairness and accountability aspects in data collection by providing systematic and transparent quality analysis for data collections.

Systems aiming to aid consumers in their decision-making (e.g., by implementing persuasive techniques) are more likely to be effective when consumers trust them. However, recent research has demonstrated that the machine learning algorithms that often underlie such technology can act unfairly towards specific groups (e.g., by making more favorable predictions for men than for women). An undesired disparate impact resulting from this kind of algorithmic unfairness could diminish consumer trust and thereby undermine the purpose of the system. We studied this effect by conducting a between-subjects user study investigating how (gender-related) disparate impact affected consumer trust in an app designed to improve consumers' financial decision-making. Our results show that disparate impact decreased consumers' trust in the system and made them less likely to use it. Moreover, we find that trust was affected to the same degree across consumer groups (i.e., advantaged and disadvantaged users) despite both of these consumer groups recognizing their respective levels of personal benefit. Our findings highlight the importance of fairness in consumer-oriented artificial intelligence systems.

Current developments in the statistics community suggest that modern statistics education should be structured holistically, that is, by allowing students to work with real data and to answer concrete statistical questions, but also by educating them about alternative frameworks, such as Bayesian inference. In this article, we describe how we incorporated such a holistic structure in a Bayesian research project on ordered binomial probabilities. The project was conducted with a group of three undergraduate psychology students who had basic knowledge of Bayesian statistics and programming, but lacked formal mathematical training. The research project aimed to (1) convey the basic mathematical concepts of Bayesian inference; (2) have students experience the entire empirical cycle including collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and (3) teach students open science practices.