On the State of NLP Approaches to Modeling Depression in Social Media: A Post-COVID-19 Outlook

Computational approaches to predicting mental health conditions in social media have been substantially explored in the past years. Multiple surveys have been published on this topic, providing the community with comprehensive accounts of the research in this area. Among all mental health conditions, depression is the most widely studied due to its worldwide prevalence. The COVID-19 global pandemic, starting in early 2020, has had a great impact on mental health worldwide. Harsh measures employed by governments to slow the spread of the virus (e.g., lockdowns) and the subsequent economic downturn experienced in many countries have significantly impacted people's lives and mental health. Studies have shown a substantial increase of above 50% in the rate of depression in the population. In this context, we present a survey on natural language processing (NLP) approaches to modeling depression in social media, providing the reader with a post-COVID-19 outlook. This survey contributes to the understanding of the impacts of the pandemic on modeling depression in social media. We outline how state-of-the-art approaches and new datasets have been used in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, we also discuss ethical issues in collecting and processing mental health data, considering fairness, accountability, and ethics.

Gender Representation and Bias in Indian Civil Service Mock Interviews

This paper makes three key contributions. First, via a substantial corpus of 51,278 interview questions sourced from 888 YouTube videos of mock interviews of Indian civil service candidates, we demonstrate stark gender bias in the broad nature of questions asked to male and female candidates. Second, our experiments with large language models show a strong presence of gender bias in explanations provided by the LLMs on the gender inference task. Finally, we present a novel dataset of 51,278 interview questions that can inform future social science studies.

Rater Cohesion and Quality from a Vicarious Perspective

Human feedback is essential for building human-centered AI systems across domains where disagreement is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Many disagreements, particularly in politically charged settings, arise because raters have opposing values or beliefs. Vicarious annotation is a method for breaking down disagreement by asking raters how they think others would annotate the data. In this paper, we explore the use of vicarious annotation with analytical methods for moderating rater disagreement. We employ rater cohesion metrics to study the potential influence of political affiliations and demographic backgrounds on raters' perceptions of offense. Additionally, we utilize CrowdTruth's rater quality metrics, which consider the demographics of the raters, to score the raters and their annotations. We study how the rater quality metrics influence the in-group and cross-group rater cohesion across the personal and vicarious levels.

Community Needs and Assets: A Computational Analysis of Community Conversations

A community needs assessment is a tool used by non-profits and government agencies to quantify the strengths and issues of a community, allowing them to allocate their resources better. Such approaches are transitioning towards leveraging social media conversations to analyze the needs of communities and the assets already present within them. However, manual analysis of exponentially increasing social media conversations is challenging. There is a gap in the present literature in computationally analyzing how community members discuss the strengths and needs of the community. To address this gap, we introduce the task of identifying, extracting, and categorizing community needs and assets from conversational data using sophisticated natural language processing methods. To facilitate this task, we introduce the first dataset about community needs and assets consisting of 3,511 conversations from Reddit, annotated using crowdsourced workers. Using this dataset, we evaluate an utterance-level classification model compared to sentiment classification and a popular large language model (in a zero-shot setting), where we find that our model outperforms both baselines at an F1 score of 94% compared to 49% and 61% respectively. Furthermore, we observe through our study that conversations about needs have negative sentiments and emotions, while conversations about assets focus on location and entities. The dataset is available at https://github.com/towhidabsar/CommunityNeeds.

Infrastructure Ombudsman: Mining Future Failure Concerns from Structural Disaster Response

Current research concentrates on studying discussions on social media related to structural failures to improve disaster response strategies. However, detecting social web posts discussing concerns about anticipatory failures is under-explored. If such concerns are channeled to the appropriate authorities, it can aid in the prevention and mitigation of potential infrastructural failures. In this paper, we develop an infrastructure ombudsman -- that automatically detects specific infrastructure concerns. Our work considers several recent structural failures in the US. We present a first-of-its-kind dataset of 2,662 social web instances for this novel task mined from Reddit and YouTube.

Down the Toxicity Rabbit Hole: Investigating PaLM 2 Guardrails

This paper conducts a robustness audit of the safety feedback of PaLM 2 through a novel toxicity rabbit hole framework introduced here. Starting with a stereotype, the framework instructs PaLM 2 to generate more toxic content than the stereotype. Every subsequent iteration it continues instructing PaLM 2 to generate more toxic content than the previous iteration until PaLM 2 safety guardrails throw a safety violation. Our experiments uncover highly disturbing antisemitic, Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic (to list a few) generated content that PaLM 2 safety guardrails do not evaluate as highly unsafe.

Disentangling Societal Inequality from Model Biases: Gender Inequality in Divorce Court Proceedings

Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court. Since this is usually an unpleasant outcome of a marital union, each party may have reasons to call the decision to quit which is generally documented in detail in the court proceedings. Via a substantial corpus of 17,306 court proceedings, this paper investigates gender inequality through the lens of divorce court proceedings. While emerging data sources (e.g., public court records) on sensitive societal issues hold promise in aiding social science research, biases present in cutting-edge natural language processing (NLP) methods may interfere with or affect such studies. We thus require a thorough analysis of potential gaps and limitations present in extant NLP resources. In this paper, on the methodological side, we demonstrate that existing NLP resources required several non-trivial modifications to quantify societal inequalities. On the substantive side, we find that while a large number of court cases perhaps suggest changing norms in India where women are increasingly challenging patriarchy, AI-powered analyses of these court proceedings indicate striking gender inequality with women often subjected to domestic violence.

For Women, Life, Freedom: A Participatory AI-Based Social Web Analysis of a Watershed Moment in Iran's Gender Struggles

In this paper, we present a computational analysis of the Persian language Twitter discourse with the aim to estimate the shift in stance toward gender equality following the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody. We present an ensemble active learning pipeline to train a stance classifier. Our novelty lies in the involvement of Iranian women in an active role as annotators in building this AI system. Our annotators not only provide labels, but they also suggest valuable keywords for more meaningful corpus creation as well as provide short example documents for a guided sampling step. Our analyses indicate that Mahsa Amini's death triggered polarized Persian language discourse where both fractions of negative and positive tweets toward gender equality increased. The increase in positive tweets was slightly greater than the increase in negative tweets. We also observe that with respect to account creation time, between the state-aligned Twitter accounts and pro-protest Twitter accounts, pro-protest accounts are more similar to baseline Persian Twitter activity.

Subjective Crowd Disagreements for Subjective Data: Uncovering Meaningful CrowdOpinion with Population-level Learning

Human-annotated data plays a critical role in the fairness of AI systems, including those that deal with life-altering decisions or moderating human-created web/social media content. Conventionally, annotator disagreements are resolved before any learning takes place. However, researchers are increasingly identifying annotator disagreement as pervasive and meaningful. They also question the performance of a system when annotators disagree. Particularly when minority views are disregarded, especially among groups that may already be underrepresented in the annotator population. In this paper, we introduce \emph{CrowdOpinion}\footnote{Accepted for publication at ACL 2023}, an unsupervised learning based approach that uses language features and label distributions to pool similar items into larger samples of label distributions. We experiment with four generative and one density-based clustering method, applied to five linear combinations of label distributions and features. We use five publicly available benchmark datasets (with varying levels of annotator disagreements) from social media (Twitter, Gab, and Reddit). We also experiment in the wild using a dataset from Facebook, where annotations come from the platform itself by users reacting to posts. We evaluate \emph{CrowdOpinion} as a label distribution prediction task using KL-divergence and a single-label problem using accuracy measures.

Vicarious Offense and Noise Audit of Offensive Speech Classifiers

This paper examines social web content moderation from two key perspectives: automated methods (machine moderators) and human evaluators (human moderators). We conduct a noise audit at an unprecedented scale using nine machine moderators trained on well-known offensive speech data sets evaluated on a corpus sampled from 92 million YouTube comments discussing a multitude of issues relevant to US politics. We introduce a first-of-its-kind data set of vicarious offense. We ask annotators: (1) if they find a given social media post offensive; and (2) how offensive annotators sharing different political beliefs would find the same content. Our experiments with machine moderators reveal that moderation outcomes wildly vary across different machine moderators. Our experiments with human moderators suggest that (1) political leanings considerably affect first-person offense perspective; (2) Republicans are the worst predictors of vicarious offense; (3) predicting vicarious offense for the Republicans is most challenging than predicting vicarious offense for the Independents and the Democrats; and (4) disagreement across political identity groups considerably increases when sensitive issues such as reproductive rights or gun control/rights are discussed. Both experiments suggest that offense, is indeed, highly subjective and raise important questions concerning content moderation practices.