Explore the vast range of titles available.

Ground Truth program was designed to evaluate social science modeling approaches using simulation test beds with ground truth intentionally and systematically embedded to understand and model complex Human Domain systems and their dynamics Lazer et al. (Science 369:1060–1062, 2020). Our multidisciplinary team of data scientists, statisticians, experts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and visual analytics had a unique role on the program to investigate accuracy, reproducibility, generalizability, and robustness of the state-of-the-art (SOTA) causal structure learning approaches applied to fully observed and sampled simulated data across virtual worlds. In addition, we analyzed the feasibility of using machine learning models to predict future social behavior with and without causal knowledge explicitly embedded. In this paper, we first present our causal modeling approach to discover the causal structure of four virtual worlds produced by the simulation teams—Urban Life, Financial Governance, Disaster and Geopolitical Conflict. Our approach adapts the state-of-the-art causal discovery (including ensemble models), machine learning, data analytics, and visualization techniques to allow a human-machine team to reverse-engineer the true causal relations from sampled and fully observed data. We next present our reproducibility analysis of two research methods team’s performance using a range of causal discovery models applied to both sampled and fully observed data, and analyze their effectiveness and limitations. We further investigate the generalizability and robustness to sampling of the SOTA causal discovery approaches on additional simulated datasets with known ground truth. Our results reveal the limitations of existing causal modeling approaches when applied to large-scale, noisy, high-dimensional data with unobserved variables and unknown relationships between them. We show that the SOTA causal models explored in our experiments are not designed to take advantage from vasts amounts of data and have difficulty recovering ground truth when latent confounders are present; they do not generalize well across simulation scenarios and are not robust to sampling; they are vulnerable to data and modeling assumptions, and therefore, the results are hard to reproduce. Finally, when we outline lessons learned and provide recommendations to improve models for causal discovery and prediction of human social behavior from observational data, we highlight the importance of learning data to knowledge representations or transformations to improve causal discovery and describe the benefit of causal feature selection for predictive and prescriptive modeling.

People frequently supplement or have replaced their consumption of news from traditional print, radio, or television news sources with social news consumption from online social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit. Reliance on social media sites as primary sources of news and information continues to grow and shows little sign of decreasing in the future. Tasked with curating an ever-increasing amount of content, providers leverage user interaction feedback to make decisions about which content to display, highlight, and hide. The sheer volume of new information being produced and consumed only increases the reliance that individuals place on anonymous others to curate and sort the massive amounts of information.Here, I describe several analyses and predictive models of user-behavior in social news platforms such as: user-interactions that rely on or influence the aggregate, anonymous crowd-ratings used to identify news-worthy content and user-interactions with news sources of varied credibility in particular. The central focus of this work is to understand not only how individuals consume social news, but also how they contribute to the spread and reception of credible news and misinformation. Experimental results and predictive models demonstrate the influence of algorithmic biases on social news consumption patterns and the distinctions in the consumption of, response to, and propagation of information from news sources of varied credibility.

Drawing causal conclusions from observational real-world data is a very much desired but challenging task. In this paper we present mixed-method analyses to investigate causal influences of publication trends and behavior on the adoption, persistence, and retirement of certain research foci -- methodologies, materials, and tasks that are of interest to the computational linguistics (CL) community. Our key findings highlight evidence of the transition to rapidly emerging methodologies in the research community (e.g., adoption of bidirectional LSTMs influencing the retirement of LSTMs), the persistent engagement with trending tasks and techniques (e.g., deep learning, embeddings, generative, and language models), the effect of scientist location from outside the US, e.g., China on propensity of researching languages beyond English, and the potential impact of funding for large-scale research programs. We anticipate this work to provide useful insights about publication trends and behavior and raise the awareness about the potential for causal inference in the computational linguistics and a broader scientific community.

As people rely on social media as their primary sources of news, the spread of misinformation has become a significant concern. In this large-scale study of news in social media we analyze eleven million posts and investigate propagation behavior of users that directly interact with news accounts identified as spreading trusted versus malicious content. Unlike previous work, which looks at specific rumors, topics, or events, we consider all content propagated by various news sources. Moreover, we analyze and contrast population versus sub-population behaviour (by demographics) when spreading misinformation, and distinguish between two types of propagation, i.e., direct retweets and mentions. Our evaluation examines how evenly, how many, how quickly, and which users propagate content from various types of news sources on Twitter. Our analysis has identified several key differences in propagation behavior from trusted versus suspicious news sources. These include high inequity in the diffusion rate based on the source of disinformation, with a small group of highly active users responsible for the majority of disinformation spread overall and within each demographic. Analysis by demographics showed that users with lower annual income and education share more from disinformation sources compared to their counterparts. News content is shared significantly more quickly from trusted, conspiracy, and disinformation sources compared to clickbait and propaganda. Older users propagate news from trusted sources more quickly than younger users, but they share from suspicious sources after longer delays. Finally, users who interact with clickbait and conspiracy sources are likely to share from propaganda accounts, but not the other way around.

As civil discourse increasingly takes place online, misinformation and the polarization of news shared in online communities have become ever more relevant concerns with real world harms across our society. Studying online news sharing at scale is challenging due to the massive volume of content which is shared by millions of users across thousands of communities. Therefore, existing research has largely focused on specific communities or specific interventions, such as bans. However, understanding the prevalence and spread of misinformation and polarization more broadly, across thousands of online communities, is critical for the development of governance strategies, interventions, and community design. Here, we conduct the largest study of news sharing on reddit to date, analyzing more than 550 million links spanning 4 years. We use non-partisan news source ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check to annotate links to news sources with their political bias and factualness. We find that, compared to left-leaning communities, right-leaning communities have 105% more variance in the political bias of their news sources, and more links to relatively-more biased sources, on average. We observe that reddit users' voting and re-sharing behaviors generally decrease the visibility of extremely biased and low factual content, which receives 20% fewer upvotes and 30% fewer exposures from crossposts than more neutral or more factual content. This suggests that reddit is more resilient to low factual content than Twitter. We show that extremely biased and low factual content is very concentrated, with 99% of such content being shared in only 0.5% of communities, giving credence to the recent strategy of community-wide bans and quarantines.

A proliferation of Large Language Models (the GPT series, BLOOM, LLaMA, and more) are driving forward novel development of multipurpose AI for a variety of tasks, particularly natural language processing (NLP) tasks. These models demonstrate strong performance on a range of tasks; however, there has been evidence of brittleness when applied to more niche or narrow domains where hallucinations or fluent but incorrect responses reduce performance. Given the complex nature of scientific domains, it is prudent to investigate the trade-offs of leveraging off-the-shelf versus more targeted foundation models for scientific domains. In this work, we examine the benefits of in-domain pre-training for a given scientific domain, chemistry, and compare these to open-source, off-the-shelf models with zero-shot and few-shot prompting. Our results show that not only do in-domain base models perform reasonably well on in-domain tasks in a zero-shot setting but that further adaptation using instruction fine-tuning yields impressive performance on chemistry-specific tasks such as named entity recognition and molecular formula generation.

In order to keep up with the demand of curating the deluge of crowd-sourced content, social media platforms leverage user interaction feedback to make decisions about which content to display, highlight, and hide. User interactions such as likes, votes, clicks, and views are assumed to be a proxy of a content's quality, popularity, or news-worthiness. In this paper we ask: how predictable are the interactions of a user on social media? To answer this question we recorded the clicking, browsing, and voting behavior of 186 Reddit users over a year. We present interesting descriptive statistics about their combined 339,270 interactions, and we find that relatively simple models are able to predict users' individual browse- or vote-interactions with reasonable accuracy.

At a time when information seekers first turn to digital sources for news and opinion, it is critical that we understand the role that social media plays in human behavior. This is especially true when information consumers also act as information producers and editors through their online activity. In order to better understand the effects that editorial ratings have on online human behavior, we report the results of a two large-scale in-vivo experiments in social media. We find that small, random rating manipulations on social media posts and comments created significant changes in downstream ratings resulting in significantly different final outcomes. We found positive herding effects for positive treatments on posts, increasing the final rating by 11.02% on average, but not for positive treatments on comments. Contrary to the results of related work, we found negative herding effects for negative treatments on posts and comments, decreasing the final ratings on average, of posts by 5.15% and of comments by 37.4%. Compared to the control group, the probability of reaching a high rating (>=2000) for posts is increased by 24.6% when posts receive the positive treatment and for comments is decreased by 46.6% when comments receive the negative treatment.

Keyphrase extraction aims at automatically extracting a list of \"important\" phrases representing the key concepts in a document. Prior approaches for unsupervised keyphrase extraction resorted to heuristic notions of phrase importance via embedding clustering or graph centrality, requiring extensive domain expertise. Our work presents a simple alternative approach which defines keyphrases as document phrases that are salient for predicting the topic of the document. To this end, we propose INSPECT -- an approach that uses self-explaining models for identifying influential keyphrases in a document by measuring the predictive impact of input phrases on the downstream task of the document topic classification. We show that this novel method not only alleviates the need for ad-hoc heuristics but also achieves state-of-the-art results in unsupervised keyphrase extraction in four datasets across two domains: scientific publications and news articles.

Deceptive news posts shared in online communities can be detected with NLP models, and much recent research has focused on the development of such models. In this work, we use characteristics of online communities and authors -- the context of how and where content is posted -- to explain the performance of a neural network deception detection model and identify sub-populations who are disproportionately affected by model accuracy or failure. We examine who is posting the content, and where the content is posted to. We find that while author characteristics are better predictors of deceptive content than community characteristics, both characteristics are strongly correlated with model performance. Traditional performance metrics such as F1 score may fail to capture poor model performance on isolated sub-populations such as specific authors, and as such, more nuanced evaluation of deception detection models is critical.