Search for: All records

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users, taking on significant roles as advice givers in the domains of medicine, personal relationships, and even legal matters. The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains, especially questions about possible biases. To quantify the nature of potential biases in LLMs, various works have applied Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), a framework that categorizes human moral reasoning into five dimensions: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Previous research has used the MFT to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines. While there has been some analysis of the responses of LLM with respect to political stance in role-playing scenarios, no work so far has directly assessed the moral leanings in the LLM responses, nor have they connected LLM outputs with robust human data. In this paper we analyze the distinctions between LLM MFT responses and existing human research directly, investigating whether commonly available LLM responses demonstrate ideological leanings — either through their inherent responses, straightforward representations of political ideologies, or when responding from the perspectives of constructed human personas. We assess whether LLMs inherently generate responses that align more closely with one political ideology over another, and additionally examine how accurately LLMs can represent ideological perspectives through both explicit prompting and demographic-based role-playing. By systematically analyzing LLM behavior across these conditions and experiments, our study provides insight into the extent of political and demographic dependency in AI-generated responses. 

Fairness in recommender systems is a complex concept, involving multiple definitions, different parties for whom fairness is sought, and various scopes over which fairness might be measured. Re- searchers seeking fairness-aware systems have derived a variety of solutions, usually highly tailored to specific choices along each of these dimensions, and typically aimed at tackling a single fairness concern, i.e., a single definition for a specific stakeholder group and measurement scope. However, in practical contexts, there are a multiplicity of fairness concerns within a given recommendation application and solutions limited to a single dimension are therefore less useful. We explore a general solution to recommender system fairness using social choice methods to integrate multiple hetero- geneous definitions. In this paper, we extend group-fairness results from prior research to provider-side individual fairness, demon- strating in multiple datasets that both individual and group fairness objectives can be integrated and optimized jointly. We identify both synergies and tensions among different objectives with individ- ual fairness correlated with group fairness for some groups and anti-correlated with others. 

Algorithmic fairness in the context of personalized recommendation presents significantly different challenges to those commonly encountered in classification tasks. Researchers studying classification have generally considered fairness to be a matter of achieving equality of outcomes (or some other metric) between a protected and unprotected group, and built algorithmic interventions on this basis. We argue that fairness in real-world application settings in general, and especially in the context of personalized recommendation, is much more complex and multi-faceted, requiring a more general approach. To address the fundamental problem of fairness in the presence of multiple stakeholders, with different definitions of fairness, we propose the Social Choice for Recommendation Under Fairness – Dynamic (SCRUF-D) architecture, which formalizes multistakeholder fairness in recommender systems as a two-stage social choice problem. In particular, we express recommendation fairness as a combination of an allocation and an aggregation problem, which integrate both fairness concerns and personalized recommendation provisions, and derive new recommendation techniques based on this formulation. We demonstrate the ability of our framework to dynamically incorporate multiple fairness concerns using both real-world and synthetic datasets. 

Online reviews provide valuable insights into the perceived quality of facets of a product or service. While aspect-based sentiment analysis has focused on extracting these facets from reviews, there is less work understanding the impact of each aspect on overall perception. This is particularly challenging given correlations among aspects, making it difficult to isolate the effects of each. This paper introduces a methodology based on recent advances in text-based causal analysis, specifically CausalBERT, to disentangle the effect of each factor on overall review ratings. We enhance CausalBERT with three key improvements: temperature scaling for better calibrated treatment assignment estimates; hyperparameter optimization to reduce confound overadjustment; and interpretability methods to characterize discovered confounds. In this work, we treat the textual mentions in reviews as proxies for real-world attributes. We validate our approach on real and semi-synthetic data from over 600K reviews of U.S. K-12 schools. We find that the proposed enhancements result in more reliable estimates, and that perception of school administration and performance on benchmarks are significant drivers of overall school ratings. 

Algorithmic fairness in recommender systems requires close attention to the needs of a diverse set of stakeholders that may have competing interests. Previous work in this area has often been limited by fixed, single-objective definitions of fairness, built into algorithms or optimization criteria that are applied to a single fairness dimension or, at most, applied identically across dimensions. These narrow conceptualizations limit the ability to adapt fairness-aware solutions to the wide range of stakeholder needs and fairness definitions that arise in practice. Our work approaches recommendation fairness from the standpoint of computational social choice, using a multi-agent framework. In this paper, we explore the properties of different social choice mechanisms and demonstrate the successful integration of multiple, heterogeneous fairness definitions across multiple data sets. 

Synthetic data is a useful resource for algorithmic research. It allows for the evaluation of systems under a range of conditions that might be difficult to achieve in real world settings. In recommender systems, the use of synthetic data is somewhat limited; some work has concentrated on building user-item interaction data at large scale. We believe that fairness-aware recommendation research can benefit from simulated data as it allows the study of protected groups and their interactions without depending on sensitive data that needs privacy protection. In this paper, we propose a novel type of data for fairness-aware recommendation: synthetic recommender system outputs that can be used to study re-ranking algorithms. 

Algorithmic fairness in the context of personalized recommendation presents significantly different challenges to those commonly encountered in classification tasks. Researchers studying classification have generally considered fairness to be a matter of achieving equality of outcomes between a protected and unprotected group, and built algorithmic interventions on this basis. We argue that fairness in real-world application settings in general, and especially in the context of personalized recommendation, is much more complex and multi-faceted, requiring a more general approach. We propose a model to formalize multistakeholder fairness in recommender systems as a two stage social choice problem. In particular, we express recommendation fairness as a novel combination of an allocation and an aggregation problem, which integrate both fairness concerns and personalized recommendation provisions, and derive new recommendation techniques based on this formulation. Simulations demonstrate the ability of the framework to integrate multiple fairness concerns in a dynamic way 

Recommender systems have a variety of stakeholders. Applying concepts of fairness in such systems requires attention to stakeholders’ complex and often-conflicting needs. Since fairness is socially constructed, there are numerous definitions, both in the social science and machine learning literatures. Still, it is rare for machine learning researchers to develop their metrics in close consideration of their social context. More often, standard definitions are adopted and assumed to be applicable across contexts and stakeholders. Our research starts with a recommendation context and then seeks to understand the breadth of the fairness considerations of associated stakeholders. In this paper, we report on the results of a semi-structured interview study with 23 employees who work for the Kiva microlending platform. We characterize the many different ways in which they enact and strive toward fairness for microlending recommendations in their own work, uncover the ways in which these different enactments of fairness are in tension with each other, and identify how stakeholders are differentially prioritized. Finally, we reflect on the implications of this study for future research and for the design of multistakeholder recommender systems.