News is More than a Collection of Facts: Moral Frame Preserving News Summarization

News articles are more than collections of facts; they reflect journalists' framing, shaping how events are presented to the audience. One key aspect of framing is the choice to write in (or quote verbatim) morally charged language as opposed to using neutral terms. This moral framing carries implicit judgments that automated news summarizers should recognize and preserve to maintain the original intent of the writer. In this work, we perform the first study on the preservation of moral framing in AI-generated news summaries. We propose an approach that leverages the intuition that journalists intentionally use or report specific moral-laden words, which should be retained in summaries. Through automated, crowd-sourced, and expert evaluations, we demonstrate that our approach enhances the preservation of moral framing while maintaining overall summary quality.

Gricean Norms as a Basis for Effective Collaboration

Effective human-AI collaboration hinges not only on the AI agent's ability to follow explicit instructions but also on its capacity to navigate ambiguity, incompleteness, invalidity, and irrelevance in communication. Gricean conversational and inference norms facilitate collaboration by aligning unclear instructions with cooperative principles. We propose a normative framework that integrates Gricean norms and cognitive frameworks -- common ground, relevance theory, and theory of mind -- into large language model (LLM) based agents. The normative framework adopts the Gricean maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner, along with inference, as Gricean norms to interpret unclear instructions, which are: ambiguous, incomplete, invalid, or irrelevant. Within this framework, we introduce Lamoids, GPT-4 powered agents designed to collaborate with humans. To assess the influence of Gricean norms in human-AI collaboration, we evaluate two versions of a Lamoid: one with norms and one without. In our experiments, a Lamoid collaborates with a human to achieve shared goals in a grid world (Doors, Keys, and Gems) by interpreting both clear and unclear natural language instructions. Our results reveal that the Lamoid with Gricean norms achieves higher task accuracy and generates clearer, more accurate, and contextually relevant responses than the Lamoid without norms. This improvement stems from the normative framework, which enhances the agent's pragmatic reasoning, fostering effective human-AI collaboration and enabling context-aware communication in LLM-based agents.

Right vs. Right: Can LLMs Make Tough Choices?

An ethical dilemma describes a choice between two "right" options involving conflicting moral values. We present a comprehensive evaluation of how LLMs navigate ethical dilemmas. Specifically, we investigate LLMs on their (1) sensitivity in comprehending ethical dilemmas, (2) consistency in moral value choice, (3) consideration of consequences, and (4) ability to align their responses to a moral value preference explicitly or implicitly specified in a prompt. Drawing inspiration from a leading ethical framework, we construct a dataset comprising 1,730 ethical dilemmas involving four pairs of conflicting values. We evaluate 20 well-known LLMs from six families. Our experiments reveal that: (1) LLMs exhibit pronounced preferences between major value pairs, and prioritize truth over loyalty, community over individual, and long-term over short-term considerations. (2) The larger LLMs tend to support a deontological perspective, maintaining their choices of actions even when negative consequences are specified. (3) Explicit guidelines are more effective in guiding LLMs' moral choice than in-context examples. Lastly, our experiments highlight the limitation of LLMs in comprehending different formulations of ethical dilemmas.

Navigating Trade-offs: Policy Summarization for Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning

Multi-objective reinforcement learning (MORL) is used to solve problems involving multiple objectives. An MORL agent must make decisions based on the diverse signals provided by distinct reward functions. Training an MORL agent yields a set of solutions (policies), each presenting distinct trade-offs among the objectives (expected returns). MORL enhances explainability by enabling fine-grained comparisons of policies in the solution set based on their trade-offs as opposed to having a single policy. However, the solution set is typically large and multi-dimensional, where each policy (e.g., a neural network) is represented by its objective values. We propose an approach for clustering the solution set generated by MORL. By considering both policy behavior and objective values, our clustering method can reveal the relationship between policy behaviors and regions in the objective space. This approach can enable decision makers (DMs) to identify overarching trends and insights in the solution set rather than examining each policy individually. We tested our method in four multi-objective environments and found it outperformed traditional k-medoids clustering. Additionally, we include a case study that demonstrates its real-world application.

Annotator-Centric Active Learning for Subjective NLP Tasks

To accurately capture the variability in human judgments for subjective NLP tasks, incorporating a wide range of perspectives in the annotation process is crucial. Active Learning (AL) addresses the high costs of collecting human annotations by strategically annotating the most informative samples. We introduce Annotator-Centric Active Learning (ACAL), which incorporates an annotator selection strategy following data sampling. Our objective is two-fold: (1) to efficiently approximate the full diversity of human judgments, and to assess model performance using annotator-centric metrics, which emphasize minority perspectives over a majority. We experiment with multiple annotator selection strategies across seven subjective NLP tasks, employing both traditional and novel, human-centered evaluation metrics. Our findings indicate that ACAL improves data efficiency and excels in annotator-centric performance evaluations. However, its success depends on the availability of a sufficiently large and diverse pool of annotators to sample from.

A Hybrid Intelligence Method for Argument Mining

Large-scale survey tools enable the collection of citizen feedback in opinion corpora. Extracting the key arguments from a large and noisy set of opinions helps in understanding the opinions quickly and accurately. Fully automated methods can extract arguments but (1) require large labeled datasets that induce large annotation costs and (2) work well for known viewpoints, but not for novel points of view. We propose HyEnA, a hybrid (human + AI) method for extracting arguments from opinionated texts, combining the speed of automated processing with the understanding and reasoning capabilities of humans. We evaluate HyEnA on three citizen feedback corpora. We find that, on the one hand, HyEnA achieves higher coverage and precision than a state-of-the-art automated method when compared to a common set of diverse opinions, justifying the need for human insight. On the other hand, HyEnA requires less human effort and does not compromise quality compared to (fully manual) expert analysis, demonstrating the benefit of combining human and artificial intelligence.

Value Preferences Estimation and Disambiguation in Hybrid Participatory Systems

Understanding citizens' values in participatory systems is crucial for citizen-centric policy-making. We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices, and AI agents estimate their value preferences by interacting with them. We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants' choices and motivations, and propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants. We operationalize the philosophical stance that "valuing is deliberatively consequential." That is, if a participant's choice is based on a deliberation of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation the participant provides for the choice. Thus, we propose and compare value estimation methods that prioritize the values estimated from motivations over the values estimated from choices alone. Then, we introduce a disambiguation strategy that addresses the detected inconsistencies between choices and motivations by directly interacting with the participants. We evaluate the proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and motivations improves the estimation of an individual's value preferences. The disambiguation strategy does not show substantial improvements when compared to similar baselines--however, we discuss how the novelty of the approach can open new research avenues and propose improvements to address the current limitations.

An Empirical Analysis of Diversity in Argument Summarization

Presenting high-level arguments is a crucial task for fostering participation in online societal discussions. Current argument summarization approaches miss an important facet of this task -- capturing diversity -- which is important for accommodating multiple perspectives. We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis, which shows how these approaches struggle to (1) represent arguments shared by few people, (2) deal with data from various sources, and (3) align with subjectivity in human-provided annotations. We find that both general-purpose LLMs and dedicated KPA models exhibit this behavior, but have complementary strengths. Further, we observe that diversification of training data may ameliorate generalization. Addressing diversity in argument summarization requires a mix of strategies to deal with subjectivity.

Morality is Non-Binary: Building a Pluralist Moral Sentence Embedding Space using Contrastive Learning

Recent advances in NLP show that language models retain a discernible level of knowledge in deontological ethics and moral norms. However, existing works often treat morality as binary, ranging from right to wrong. This simplistic view does not capture the nuances of moral judgment. Pluralist moral philosophers argue that human morality can be deconstructed into a finite number of elements, respecting individual differences in moral judgment. In line with this view, we build a pluralist moral sentence embedding space via a state-of-the-art contrastive learning approach. We systematically investigate the embedding space by studying the emergence of relationships among moral elements, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Our results show that a pluralist approach to morality can be captured in an embedding space. However, moral pluralism is challenging to deduce via self-supervision alone and requires a supervised approach with human labels.

What Lies beyond the Pareto Front? A Survey on Decision-Support Methods for Multi-Objective Optimization

We present a review that unifies decision-support methods for exploring the solutions produced by multi-objective optimization (MOO) algorithms. As MOO is applied to solve diverse problems, approaches for analyzing the trade-offs offered by MOO algorithms are scattered across fields. We provide an overview of the advances on this topic, including methods for visualization, mining the solution set, and uncertainty exploration as well as emerging research directions, including interactivity, explainability, and ethics. We synthesize these methods drawing from different fields of research to build a unified approach, independent of the application. Our goals are to reduce the entry barrier for researchers and practitioners on using MOO algorithms and to provide novel research directions.