HumVI: A Multilingual Dataset for Detecting Violent Incidents Impacting Humanitarian Aid

Humanitarian organizations can enhance their effectiveness by analyzing data to discover trends, gather aggregated insights, manage their security risks, support decision-making, and inform advocacy and funding proposals. However, data about violent incidents with direct impact and relevance for humanitarian aid operations is not readily available. An automatic data collection and NLP-backed classification framework aligned with humanitarian perspectives can help bridge this gap. In this paper, we present HumVI - a dataset comprising news articles in three languages (English, French, Arabic) containing instances of different types of violent incidents categorized by the humanitarian sector they impact, e.g., aid security, education, food security, health, and protection. Reliable labels were obtained for the dataset by partnering with a data-backed humanitarian organization, Insecurity Insight. We provide multiple benchmarks for the dataset, employing various deep learning architectures and techniques, including data augmentation and mask loss, to address different task-related challenges, e.g., domain expansion. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/dataminr-ai/humvi-dataset.

Explain then Rank: Scale Calibration of Neural Rankers Using Natural Language Explanations from Large Language Models

The process of scale calibration in ranking systems involves adjusting the outputs of rankers to correspond with significant qualities like click-through rates or relevance, crucial for mirroring real-world value and thereby boosting the system's effectiveness and reliability. Although there has been research on calibrated ranking losses within learning-to-rank models, the particular issue of adjusting the scale for neural rankers, which excel in handling textual information, has not been thoroughly examined. Neural ranking models are adept at processing text data, yet the application of existing scale calibration techniques to these models poses significant challenges due to their complexity and the intensive training they require, often resulting in suboptimal outcomes. This study delves into the potential of large language models (LLMs) to provide uncertainty measurements for a query and document pair that correlate with the scale-calibrated scores. By employing Monte Carlo sampling to gauge relevance probabilities from LLMs and incorporating natural language explanations (NLEs) to articulate this uncertainty, we carry out comprehensive tests on two major document ranking datasets. Our findings reveal that the approach leveraging NLEs outperforms existing calibration methods under various training scenarios, leading to better calibrated neural rankers.

Dissecting users' needs for search result explanations

There is a growing demand for transparency in search engines to understand how search results are curated and to enhance users' trust. Prior research has introduced search result explanations with a focus on how to explain, assuming explanations are beneficial. Our study takes a step back to examine if search explanations are needed and when they are likely to provide benefits. Additionally, we summarize key characteristics of helpful explanations and share users' perspectives on explanation features provided by Google and Bing. Interviews with non-technical individuals reveal that users do not always seek or understand search explanations and mostly desire them for complex and critical tasks. They find Google's search explanations too obvious but appreciate the ability to contest search results. Based on our findings, we offer design recommendations for search engines and explanations to help users better evaluate search results and enhance their search experience.

Counterfactual Editing for Search Result Explanation

Recently substantial improvements in neural retrieval methods also bring to light the inherent blackbox nature of these methods, especially when viewed from an explainability perspective. Most of existing works on Search Result Explanation (SeRE) are designed to provide factual explanation, i.e. to find/generate supporting evidence about documents' relevance to search queries. However, research in cognitive sciences have shown that human explanations are contrastive i.e. people explain an observed event using some counterfactual events; such explanations reduce cognitive load, and provide actionable insights. Though already proven effective in machine learning and NLP communities, the formulation and impact of counterfactual explanations have not been well studied for search systems. In this work, we aim to investigate the effectiveness of this perspective via proposing and evaluating counterfactual explanations for the task of SeRE. Specifically, we first conduct a user study where we investigate if counterfactual explanations indeed improve search sessions' effectiveness. Taking this as a motivation, we discuss the desiderata that an ideal counterfactual explanation method for SeRE should adhere to. Next, we propose a method $\text{CFE}^2$ (\textbf{C}ounter\textbf{F}actual \textbf{E}xplanation with \textbf{E}diting) to provide pairwise explanations to search engine result page. Finally, we showcase that the proposed method when evaluated on four publicly available datasets outperforms baselines on both metrics and human evaluation.

An Empirical Comparison of Bias Reduction Methods on Real-World Problems in High-Stakes Policy Settings

Applications of machine learning (ML) to high-stakes policy settings -- such as education, criminal justice, healthcare, and social service delivery -- have grown rapidly in recent years, sparking important conversations about how to ensure fair outcomes from these systems. The machine learning research community has responded to this challenge with a wide array of proposed fairness-enhancing strategies for ML models, but despite the large number of methods that have been developed, little empirical work exists evaluating these methods in real-world settings. Here, we seek to fill this research gap by investigating the performance of several methods that operate at different points in the ML pipeline across four real-world public policy and social good problems. Across these problems, we find a wide degree of variability and inconsistency in the ability of many of these methods to improve model fairness, but post-processing by choosing group-specific score thresholds consistently removes disparities, with important implications for both the ML research community and practitioners deploying machine learning to inform consequential policy decisions.

Machine learning for public policy: Do we need to sacrifice accuracy to make models fair?

Growing applications of machine learning in policy settings have raised concern for fairness implications, especially for racial minorities, but little work has studied the practical trade-offs between fairness and accuracy in real-world settings. This empirical study fills this gap by investigating the accuracy cost of mitigating disparities across several policy settings, focusing on the common context of using machine learning to inform benefit allocation in resource-constrained programs across education, mental health, criminal justice, and housing safety. In each setting, explicitly focusing on achieving equity and using our proposed post-hoc disparity mitigation methods, fairness was substantially improved without sacrificing accuracy, challenging the commonly held assumption that reducing disparities either requires accepting an appreciable drop in accuracy or the development of novel, complex methods.

Explainable Machine Learning for Public Policy: Use Cases, Gaps, and Research Directions

In Machine Learning (ML) models used for supporting decisions in high-stakes domains such as public policy, explainability is crucial for adoption and effectiveness. While the field of explainable ML has expanded in recent years, much of this work does not take real-world needs into account. A majority of proposed methods use benchmark ML problems with generic explainability goals without clear use-cases or intended end-users. As a result, the effectiveness of this large body of theoretical and methodological work on real-world applications is unclear. This paper focuses on filling this void for the domain of public policy. We develop a taxonomy of explainability use-cases within public policy problems; for each use-case, we define the end-users of explanations and the specific goals explainability has to fulfill; third, we map existing work to these use-cases, identify gaps, and propose research directions to fill those gaps in order to have practical policy impact through ML.

The Many Faces of Link Fraud

Most past work on social network link fraud detection tries to separate genuine users from fraudsters, implicitly assuming that there is only one type of fraudulent behavior. But is this assumption true? And, in either case, what are the characteristics of such fraudulent behaviors? In this work, we set up honeypots ("dummy" social network accounts), and buy fake followers (after careful IRB approval). We report the signs of such behaviors including oddities in local network connectivity, account attributes, and similarities and differences across fraud providers. Most valuably, we discover and characterize several types of fraud behaviors. We discuss how to leverage our insights in practice by engineering strongly performing entropy-based features and demonstrating high classification accuracy. Our contributions are (a) instrumentation: we detail our experimental setup and carefully engineered data collection process to scrape Twitter data while respecting API rate-limits, (b) observations on fraud multimodality: we analyze our honeypot fraudster ecosystem and give surprising insights into the multifaceted behaviors of these fraudster types, and (c) features: we propose novel features that give strong (>0.95 precision/recall) discriminative power on ground-truth Twitter data.

Item Recommendation with Evolving User Preferences and Experience

Current recommender systems exploit user and item similarities by collaborative filtering. Some advanced methods also consider the temporal evolution of item ratings as a global background process. However, all prior methods disregard the individual evolution of a user's experience level and how this is expressed in the user's writing in a review community. In this paper, we model the joint evolution of user experience, interest in specific item facets, writing style, and rating behavior. This way we can generate individual recommendations that take into account the user's maturity level (e.g., recommending art movies rather than blockbusters for a cinematography expert). As only item ratings and review texts are observables, we capture the user's experience and interests in a latent model learned from her reviews, vocabulary and writing style. We develop a generative HMM-LDA model to trace user evolution, where the Hidden Markov Model (HMM) traces her latent experience progressing over time -- with solely user reviews and ratings as observables over time. The facets of a user's interest are drawn from a Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model derived from her reviews, as a function of her (again latent) experience level. In experiments with five real-world datasets, we show that our model improves the rating prediction over state-of-the-art baselines, by a substantial margin. We also show, in a use-case study, that our model performs well in the assessment of user experience levels.