Information Retrieval for Climate Impact

The purpose of the MANILA24 Workshop on information retrieval for climate impact was to bring together researchers from academia, industry, governments, and NGOs to identify and discuss core research problems in information retrieval to assess climate change impacts. The workshop aimed to foster collaboration by bringing communities together that have so far not been very well connected -- information retrieval, natural language processing, systematic reviews, impact assessments, and climate science. The workshop brought together a diverse set of researchers and practitioners interested in contributing to the development of a technical research agenda for information retrieval to assess climate change impacts.

Control Search Rankings, Control the World: What is a Good Search Engine?

This paper examines the ethical question, 'What is a good search engine?' Since search engines are gatekeepers of global online information, it is vital they do their job ethically well. While the Internet is now several decades old, the topic remains under-explored from interdisciplinary perspectives. This paper presents a novel role-based approach involving four ethical models of types of search engine behavior: Customer Servant, Librarian, Journalist, and Teacher. It explores these ethical models with reference to the research field of information retrieval, and by means of a case study involving the COVID-19 global pandemic. It also reflects on the four ethical models in terms of the history of search engine development, from earlier crude efforts in the 1990s, to the very recent prospect of Large Language Model-based conversational information seeking systems taking on the roles of established web search engines like Google. Finally, the paper outlines considerations that inform present and future regulation and accountability for search engines as they continue to evolve. The paper should interest information retrieval researchers and others interested in the ethics of search engines.

Can Users Detect Biases or Factual Errors in Generated Responses in Conversational Information-Seeking?

Information-seeking dialogues span a wide range of questions, from simple factoid to complex queries that require exploring multiple facets and viewpoints. When performing exploratory searches in unfamiliar domains, users may lack background knowledge and struggle to verify the system-provided information, making them vulnerable to misinformation. We investigate the limitations of response generation in conversational information-seeking systems, highlighting potential inaccuracies, pitfalls, and biases in the responses. The study addresses the problem of query answerability and the challenge of response incompleteness. Our user studies explore how these issues impact user experience, focusing on users' ability to identify biased, incorrect, or incomplete responses. We design two crowdsourcing tasks to assess user experience with different system response variants, highlighting critical issues to be addressed in future conversational information-seeking research. Our analysis reveals that it is easier for users to detect response incompleteness than query answerability and user satisfaction is mostly associated with response diversity, not factual correctness.

Towards Investigating Biases in Spoken Conversational Search

Voice-based systems like Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, and Apple Siri, along with the growing popularity of OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft's Copilot, serve diverse populations, including visually impaired and low-literacy communities. This reflects a shift in user expectations from traditional search to more interactive question-answering models. However, presenting information effectively in voice-only channels remains challenging due to their linear nature. This limitation can impact the presentation of complex queries involving controversial topics with multiple perspectives. Failing to present diverse viewpoints may perpetuate or introduce biases and affect user attitudes. Balancing information load and addressing biases is crucial in designing a fair and effective voice-based system. To address this, we (i) review how biases and user attitude changes have been studied in screen-based web search, (ii) address challenges in studying these changes in voice-based settings like SCS, (iii) outline research questions, and (iv) propose an experimental setup with variables, data, and instruments to explore biases in a voice-based setting like Spoken Conversational Search.

Towards Detecting and Mitigating Cognitive Bias in Spoken Conversational Search

Instruments such as eye-tracking devices have contributed to understanding how users interact with screen-based search engines. However, user-system interactions in audio-only channels -- as is the case for Spoken Conversational Search (SCS) -- are harder to characterize, given the lack of instruments to effectively and precisely capture interactions. Furthermore, in this era of information overload, cognitive bias can significantly impact how we seek and consume information -- especially in the context of controversial topics or multiple viewpoints. This paper draws upon insights from multiple disciplines (including information seeking, psychology, cognitive science, and wearable sensors) to provoke novel conversations in the community. To this end, we discuss future opportunities and propose a framework including multimodal instruments and methods for experimental designs and settings. We demonstrate preliminary results as an example. We also outline the challenges and offer suggestions for adopting this multimodal approach, including ethical considerations, to assist future researchers and practitioners in exploring cognitive biases in SCS.

Explainability for Transparent Conversational Information-Seeking

The increasing reliance on digital information necessitates advancements in conversational search systems, particularly in terms of information transparency. While prior research in conversational information-seeking has concentrated on improving retrieval techniques, the challenge remains in generating responses useful from a user perspective. This study explores different methods of explaining the responses, hypothesizing that transparency about the source of the information, system confidence, and limitations can enhance users' ability to objectively assess the response. By exploring transparency across explanation type, quality, and presentation mode, this research aims to bridge the gap between system-generated responses and responses verifiable by the user. We design a user study to answer questions concerning the impact of (1) the quality of explanations enhancing the response on its usefulness and (2) ways of presenting explanations to users. The analysis of the collected data reveals lower user ratings for noisy explanations, although these scores seem insensitive to the quality of the response. Inconclusive results on the explanations presentation format suggest that it may not be a critical factor in this setting.

Characterizing Information Seeking Processes with Multiple Physiological Signals

Information access systems are getting complex, and our understanding of user behavior during information seeking processes is mainly drawn from qualitative methods, such as observational studies or surveys. Leveraging the advances in sensing technologies, our study aims to characterize user behaviors with physiological signals, particularly in relation to cognitive load, affective arousal, and valence. We conduct a controlled lab study with 26 participants, and collect data including Electrodermal Activities, Photoplethysmogram, Electroencephalogram, and Pupillary Responses. This study examines informational search with four stages: the realization of Information Need (IN), Query Formulation (QF), Query Submission (QS), and Relevance Judgment (RJ). We also include different interaction modalities to represent modern systems, e.g., QS by text-typing or verbalizing, and RJ with text or audio information. We analyze the physiological signals across these stages and report outcomes of pairwise non-parametric repeated-measure statistical tests. The results show that participants experience significantly higher cognitive loads at IN with a subtle increase in alertness, while QF requires higher attention. QS involves demanding cognitive loads than QF. Affective responses are more pronounced at RJ than QS or IN, suggesting greater interest and engagement as knowledge gaps are resolved. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that explores user behaviors in a search process employing a more nuanced quantitative analysis of physiological signals. Our findings offer valuable insights into user behavior and emotional responses in information seeking processes. We believe our proposed methodology can inform the characterization of more complex processes, such as conversational information seeking.

Walert: Putting Conversational Search Knowledge into Action by Building and Evaluating a Large Language Model-Powered Chatbot

Creating and deploying customized applications is crucial for operational success and enriching user experiences in the rapidly evolving modern business world. A prominent facet of modern user experiences is the integration of chatbots or voice assistants. The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has provided a powerful tool to build conversational applications. We present Walert, a customized LLM-based conversational agent able to answer frequently asked questions about computer science degrees and programs at RMIT University. Our demo aims to showcase how conversational information-seeking researchers can effectively communicate the benefits of using best practices to stakeholders interested in developing and deploying LLM-based chatbots. These practices are well-known in our community but often overlooked by practitioners who may not have access to this knowledge. The methodology and resources used in this demo serve as a bridge to facilitate knowledge transfer from experts, address industry professionals' practical needs, and foster a collaborative environment. The data and code of the demo are available at https://github.com/rmit-ir/walert.

i-Align: an interpretable knowledge graph alignment model

Knowledge graphs (KGs) are becoming essential resources for many downstream applications. However, their incompleteness may limit their potential. Thus, continuous curation is needed to mitigate this problem. One of the strategies to address this problem is KG alignment, i.e., forming a more complete KG by merging two or more KGs. This paper proposes i-Align, an interpretable KG alignment model. Unlike the existing KG alignment models, i-Align provides an explanation for each alignment prediction while maintaining high alignment performance. Experts can use the explanation to check the correctness of the alignment prediction. Thus, the high quality of a KG can be maintained during the curation process (e.g., the merging process of two KGs). To this end, a novel Transformer-based Graph Encoder (Trans-GE) is proposed as a key component of i-Align for aggregating information from entities' neighbors (structures). Trans-GE uses Edge-gated Attention that combines the adjacency matrix and the self-attention matrix to learn a gating mechanism to control the information aggregation from the neighboring entities. It also uses historical embeddings, allowing Trans-GE to be trained over mini-batches, or smaller sub-graphs, to address the scalability issue when encoding a large KG. Another component of i-Align is a Transformer encoder for aggregating entities' attributes. This way, i-Align can generate explanations in the form of a set of the most influential attributes/neighbors based on attention weights. Extensive experiments are conducted to show the power of i-Align. The experiments include several aspects, such as the model's effectiveness for aligning KGs, the quality of the generated explanations, and its practicality for aligning large KGs. The results show the effectiveness of i-Align in these aspects.

Designing and Evaluating Presentation Strategies for Fact-Checked Content

With the rapid growth of online misinformation, it is crucial to have reliable fact-checking methods. Recent research on finding check-worthy claims and automated fact-checking have made significant advancements. However, limited guidance exists regarding the presentation of fact-checked content to effectively convey verified information to users. We address this research gap by exploring the critical design elements in fact-checking reports and investigating whether credibility and presentation-based design improvements can enhance users' ability to interpret the report accurately. We co-developed potential content presentation strategies through a workshop involving fact-checking professionals, communication experts, and researchers. The workshop examined the significance and utility of elements such as veracity indicators and explored the feasibility of incorporating interactive components for enhanced information disclosure. Building on the workshop outcomes, we conducted an online experiment involving 76 crowd workers to assess the efficacy of different design strategies. The results indicate that proposed strategies significantly improve users' ability to accurately interpret the verdict of fact-checking articles. Our findings underscore the critical role of effective presentation of fact reports in addressing the spread of misinformation. By adopting appropriate design enhancements, the effectiveness of fact-checking reports can be maximized, enabling users to make informed judgments.