Exploring Multidimensional Checkworthiness: Designing AI-assisted Claim Prioritization for Human Fact-checkers

Given the massive volume of potentially false claims circulating online, claim prioritization is essential in allocating limited human resources available for fact-checking. In this study, we perceive claim prioritization as an information retrieval (IR) task: just as multidimensional IR relevance, with many factors influencing which search results a user deems relevant, checkworthiness is also multi-faceted, subjective, and even personal, with many factors influencing how fact-checkers triage and select which claims to check. Our study investigates both the multidimensional nature of checkworthiness and effective tool support to assist fact-checkers in claim prioritization. Methodologically, we pursue Research through Design combined with mixed-method evaluation. We develop an AI-assisted claim prioritization prototype as a probe to explore how fact-checkers use multidimensional checkworthiness factors in claim prioritization, simultaneously probing fact-checker needs while also exploring the design space to meet those needs. Our study with 16 professional fact-checkers investigates: 1) how participants assessed the relative importance of different checkworthy dimensions and apply different priorities in claim selection; 2) how they created customized GPT-based search filters and the corresponding benefits and limitations; and 3) their overall user experiences with our prototype. Our work makes a conceptual contribution between multidimensional IR relevance and fact-checking checkworthiness, with findings demonstrating the value of corresponding tooling support. Specifically, we uncovered a hierarchical prioritization strategy fact-checkers implicitly use, revealing an underexplored aspect of their workflow, with actionable design recommendations for improving claim triage across multi-dimensional checkworthiness and tailoring this process with LLM integration.

Argumentative Experience: Reducing Confirmation Bias on Controversial Issues through LLM-Generated Multi-Persona Debates

Large language models (LLMs) are enabling designers to give life to exciting new user experiences for information access. In this work, we present a system that generates LLM personas to debate a topic of interest from different perspectives. How might information seekers use and benefit from such a system? Can centering information access around diverse viewpoints help to mitigate thorny challenges like confirmation bias in which information seekers over-trust search results matching existing beliefs? How do potential biases and hallucinations in LLMs play out alongside human users who are also fallible and possibly biased? Our study exposes participants to multiple viewpoints on controversial issues via a mixed-methods, within-subjects study. We use eye-tracking metrics to quantitatively assess cognitive engagement alongside qualitative feedback. Compared to a baseline search system, we see more creative interactions and diverse information-seeking with our multi-persona debate system, which more effectively reduces user confirmation bias and conviction toward their initial beliefs. Overall, our study contributes to the emerging design space of LLM-based information access systems, specifically investigating the potential of simulated personas to promote greater exposure to information diversity, emulate collective intelligence, and mitigate bias in information seeking.

Fairly Accurate: Optimizing Accuracy Parity in Fair Target-Group Detection

In algorithmic toxicity detection pipelines, it is important to identify which demographic group(s) are the subject of a post, a task commonly known as \textit{target (group) detection}. While accurate detection is clearly important, we further advocate a fairness objective: to provide equal protection to all groups who may be targeted. To this end, we adopt \textit{Accuracy Parity} (AP) -- balanced detection accuracy across groups -- as our fairness objective. However, in order to align model training with our AP fairness objective, we require an equivalent loss function. Moreover, for gradient-based models such as neural networks, this loss function needs to be differentiable. Because no such loss function exists today for AP, we propose \emph{Group Accuracy Parity} (GAP): the first differentiable loss function having a one-on-one mapping to AP. We empirically show that GAP addresses disparate impact on groups for target detection. Furthermore, because a single post often targets multiple groups in practice, we also provide a mathematical extension of GAP to larger multi-group settings, something typically requiring heuristics in prior work. Our findings show that by optimizing AP, GAP better mitigates bias in comparison with other commonly employed loss functions.

Promoting Constructive Deliberation: Reframing for Receptiveness

To promote constructive discussion of controversial topics online, we propose automatic reframing of disagreeing responses to signal receptiveness while preserving meaning. Drawing on research from psychology, communications, and linguistics, we identify six strategies for reframing. We automatically reframe replies according to each strategy, using a dataset of Reddit comments and replies. Through human-centered experiments, we find that the replies generated with our framework are perceived to be significantly more receptive than the original replies, as well as a generic receptiveness baseline. We analyze and discuss the implications of our results and highlight applications to content moderation. Overall, we illustrate how transforming receptiveness, a particular social science construct, into a computational framework, can make LLM generations more aligned with human perceptions.

Benchmark Transparency: Measuring the Impact of Data on Evaluation

In this paper we present an exploratory research on quantifying the impact that data distribution has on the performance and evaluation of NLP models. We propose an automated framework that measures the data point distribution across 6 different dimensions: ambiguity, difficulty, discriminability, length, noise, and perplexity. We use disproportional stratified sampling to measure how much the data distribution affects absolute (Acc/F1) and relative (Rank) model performance. We experiment on 2 different datasets (SQUAD and MNLI) and test a total of 135 different models (125 on SQUAD and 10 on MNLI). We demonstrate that without explicit control of the data distribution, standard evaluation frameworks are inconsistent and unreliable. We find that the impact of the data is statistically significant and is often larger than the impact of changing the metric. In a second set of experiments, we demonstrate that the impact of data on evaluation is not just observable, but also predictable. We propose to use benchmark transparency as a method for comparing datasets and quantifying the similarity between them. We find that the ``dataset similarity vector'' can be used to predict how well a model generalizes out of distribution.

Diverse, but Divisive: LLMs Can Exaggerate Gender Differences in Opinion Related to Harms of Misinformation

The pervasive spread of misinformation and disinformation poses a significant threat to society. Professional fact-checkers play a key role in addressing this threat, but the vast scale of the problem forces them to prioritize their limited resources. This prioritization may consider a range of factors, such as varying risks of harm posed to specific groups of people. In this work, we investigate potential implications of using a large language model (LLM) to facilitate such prioritization. Because fact-checking impacts a wide range of diverse segments of society, it is important that diverse views are represented in the claim prioritization process. This paper examines whether a LLM can reflect the views of various groups when assessing the harms of misinformation, focusing on gender as a primary variable. We pose two central questions: (1) To what extent do prompts with explicit gender references reflect gender differences in opinion in the United States on topics of social relevance? and (2) To what extent do gender-neutral prompts align with gendered viewpoints on those topics? To analyze these questions, we present the TopicMisinfo dataset, containing 160 fact-checked claims from diverse topics, supplemented by nearly 1600 human annotations with subjective perceptions and annotator demographics. Analyzing responses to gender-specific and neutral prompts, we find that GPT 3.5-Turbo reflects empirically observed gender differences in opinion but amplifies the extent of these differences. These findings illuminate AI's complex role in moderating online communication, with implications for fact-checkers, algorithm designers, and the use of crowd-workers as annotators. We also release the TopicMisinfo dataset to support continuing research in the community.

A General Model for Aggregating Annotations Across Simple, Complex, and Multi-Object Annotation Tasks

Human annotations are vital to supervised learning, yet annotators often disagree on the correct label, especially as annotation tasks increase in complexity. A strategy to improve label quality is to ask multiple annotators to label the same item and aggregate their labels. Many aggregation models have been proposed for categorical or numerical annotation tasks, but far less work has considered more complex annotation tasks involving open-ended, multivariate, or structured responses. While a variety of bespoke models have been proposed for specific tasks, our work is the first to introduce aggregation methods that generalize across many diverse complex tasks, including sequence labeling, translation, syntactic parsing, ranking, bounding boxes, and keypoints. This generality is achieved by devising a task-agnostic method to model distances between labels rather than the labels themselves. This article extends our prior work with investigation of three new research questions. First, how do complex annotation properties impact aggregation accuracy? Second, how should a task owner navigate the many modeling choices to maximize aggregation accuracy? Finally, what diagnoses can verify that aggregation models are specified correctly for the given data? To understand how various factors impact accuracy and to inform model selection, we conduct simulation studies and experiments on real, complex datasets. Regarding testing, we introduce unit tests for aggregation models and present a suite of such tests to ensure that a given model is not mis-specified and exhibits expected behavior. Beyond investigating these research questions above, we discuss the foundational concept of annotation complexity, present a new aggregation model as a bridge between traditional models and our own, and contribute a new semi-supervised learning method for complex label aggregation that outperforms prior work.

DMLR: Data-centric Machine Learning Research -- Past, Present and Future

Drawing from discussions at the inaugural DMLR workshop at ICML 2023 and meetings prior, in this report we outline the relevance of community engagement and infrastructure development for the creation of next-generation public datasets that will advance machine learning science. We chart a path forward as a collective effort to sustain the creation and maintenance of these datasets and methods towards positive scientific, societal and business impact.

Interpretable by Design: Wrapper Boxes Combine Neural Performance with Faithful Explanations

Can we preserve the accuracy of neural models while also providing faithful explanations? We present wrapper boxes, a general approach to generate faithful, example-based explanations for model predictions while maintaining predictive performance. After training a neural model as usual, its learned feature representation is input to a classic, interpretable model to perform the actual prediction. This simple strategy is surprisingly effective, with results largely comparable to those of the original neural model, as shown across three large pre-trained language models, two datasets of varying scale, four classic models, and four evaluation metrics. Moreover, because these classic models are interpretable by design, the subset of training examples that determine classic model predictions can be shown directly to users.

Human-centered NLP Fact-checking: Co-Designing with Fact-checkers using Matchmaking for AI

A key challenge in professional fact-checking is its limited scalability in relation to the magnitude of false information. While many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools have been proposed to enhance fact-checking efficiency and scalability, both academic research and fact-checking organizations report limited adoption of such tooling due to insufficient alignment with fact-checker practices, values, and needs. To address this gap, we investigate a co-design method, Matchmaking for AI, which facilitates fact-checkers, designers, and NLP researchers to collaboratively discover what fact-checker needs should be addressed by technology and how. Our co-design sessions with 22 professional fact-checkers yielded a set of 11 novel design ideas. They assist in information searching, processing, and writing tasks for efficient and personalized fact-checking; help fact-checkers proactively prepare for future misinformation; monitor their potential biases; and support internal organization collaboration. Our work offers implications for human-centered fact-checking research and practice and AI co-design research.