Search for: All records

We present a visual computing framework for analysing moral rhetoric on social media around controversial topics. Using Moral Foundation Theory, we propose a methodology for deconstructing and visualizing the when, where and who behind each of these moral dimensions as expressed in microblog data. We characterize the design of this framework, developed in collaboration with experts from language processing, communications and causal inference. Our approach integrates microblog data with multiple sources of geospatial and temporal data, and leverages unsupervised machine learning (generalized additive models) to support collaborative hypothesis discovery and testing. We implement this approach in a system named MOTIV. We illustrate this approach on two problems, one related to Stay‐at‐home policies during the COVID‐19 pandemic, and the other related to the Black Lives Matter movement. Through detailed case studies and discussions with collaborators, we identify several insights discovered regarding the different drivers of moral sentiment in social media. Our results indicate that this visual approach supports rapid, collaborative hypothesis testing, and can help give insights into the underlying moral values behind controversial political issues. 

With the ubiquity of data breaches, forgotten-about files stored in the cloud create latent privacy risks. We take a holistic approach to help users identify sensitive, unwanted files in cloud storage. We first conducted 17 qualitative interviews to characterize factors that make humans perceive a file as sensitive, useful, and worthy of either protection or deletion. Building on our findings, we conducted a primarily quantitative online study. We showed 108 long-term users of Google Drive or Dropbox a selection of files from their accounts. They labeled and explained these files’ sensitivity, usefulness, and desired management (whether they wanted to keep, delete, or protect them). For each file, we collected many metadata and content features, building a training dataset of 3,525 labeled files. We then built Aletheia, which predicts a file’s perceived sensitivity and usefulness, as well as its desired management. Aletheia improves over state-of-the-art baselines by 26% to 159%, predicting users’ desired file-management decisions with 79% accuracy. Notably, predicting subjective perceptions of usefulness and sensitivity led to a 10% absolute accuracy improvement in predicting desired file-management decisions. Aletheia’s performance validates a human-centric approach to feature selection when using inference techniques on subjective security-related tasks. It also improves upon the state of the art in minimizing the attack surface of cloud accounts. 

Current approaches to A/B testing in networks focus on limiting interference, the concern that treatment effects can ”spill over” from treatment nodes to control nodes and lead to biased causal effect estimation. Prominent methods for network experiment design rely on two-stage randomization, in which sparsely-connected clusters are identified and cluster randomization dictates the node assignment to treatment and control. Here, we show that cluster randomization does not ensure sufficient node randomization and it can lead to selection bias in which treatment and control nodes represent different populations of users. To address this problem, we propose a principled framework for network experiment design which jointly minimizes interference and selection bias. We introduce the concepts of edge spillover probability and cluster matching and demonstrate their importance for designing network A/B testing. Our experiments on a number of real-world datasets show that our proposed framework leads to significantly lower error in causal effect estimation than existing solutions. 

Click data collected by modern recommendation systems are an important source of observational data that can be utilized to train learning-to-rank (LTR) systems. However, these data suffer from a number of biases that can result in poor performance for LTR systems. Recent methods for bias correction in such systems mostly focus on position bias, the fact that higher ranked results (e.g., top search engine results) are more likely to be clicked even if they are not the most relevant results given a user’s query. Less attention has been paid to correcting for selection bias, which occurs because clicked documents are reflective of what documents have been shown to the user in the first place. Here, we propose new counterfactual approaches which adapt Heckman's two-stage method and accounts for selection and position bias in LTR systems. Our empirical evaluation shows that our proposed methods are much more robust to noise and have better accuracy compared to existing unbiased LTR algorithms, especially when there is moderate to no position bias. 

Every day people share personal stories online, reaching millions of users around the world through blogs, social media and news websites. Why are some of these stories more attractive to readers than others? What features of these personal narratives make readers empathize with the storyteller? Do the readers’ personal characteristics and experiences play a role in feeling connection to the story they read? Experimental studies in psychology show that there are several factors that increase empathy in the aggregate, but there is a need for deeper understanding of empathetic feelings at the individual level of storyteller, story, and reader. Here, we present the design and analysis of a survey that studied the impact of story features and reader predispositions and perceptions on the empathy they feel when reading online stories. We use causal trees to find the individual-level causal factors for empathy and to understand the heterogeneity in the treatment effects. One of our main findings is that empathy is contextual and, while reader personality plays a significant role in evoking empathy, the mood of the reader prior to reading the story and linguistic story features have an impact as well. The results of our analyses can be used to help people create content that others care about and to help them communicate more effectively