Language models can be trained to recognize the moral sentiment of text, creating new opportunities to study the role of morality in human life. As interest in language and morality has grown, several ground truth datasets with moral annotations have been released. However, these datasets vary in the method of data collection, domain, topics, instructions for annotators, etc. Simply aggregating such heterogeneous datasets during training can yield models that fail to generalize well. We describe a data fusion framework for training on multiple heterogeneous datasets that improve performance and generalizability. The model uses domain adversarial training to align the datasets in feature space and a weighted loss function to deal with label shift. We show that the proposed framework achieves state-of-the-art performance in different datasets compared to prior works in morality inference.
Estimating how a treatment affects different individuals, known as heterogeneous treatment effect estimation, is an important problem in empirical sciences. In the last few years, there has been a considerable interest in adapting machine learning algorithms to the problem of estimating heterogeneous effects from observational and experimental data. However, these algorithms often make strong assumptions about the observed features in the data and ignore the structure of the underlying causal model, which can lead to biased estimation. At the same time, the underlying causal mechanism is rarely known in real-world datasets, making it hard to take it into consideration. In this work, we provide a survey of state-of-the-art data-driven methods for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation using machine learning, broadly categorizing them as methods that focus on counterfactual prediction and methods that directly estimate the causal effect. We also provide an overview of a third category of methods which rely on structural causal models and learn the model structure from data. Our empirical evaluation under various underlying structural model mechanisms shows the advantages and deficiencies of existing estimators and of the metrics for measuring their performance.
Emotions play an important role in interpersonal interactions and social conflict, yet their function in the development of controversy and disagreement in online conversations has not been explored. To address this gap, we study controversy on Reddit, a popular network of online discussion forums. We collect discussions from a wide variety of topical forums and use emotion detection to recognize a range of emotions from text, including anger, fear, joy, admiration, etc. Our study has three main findings. First, controversial comments express more anger and less admiration, joy and optimism than non-controversial comments. Second, controversial comments affect emotions of downstream comments in a discussion, usually resulting in long-term increase in anger and a decrease in positive emotions, although the magnitude and direction of emotional change depends on the forum. Finally, we show that emotions help better predict which comments will become controversial. Understanding emotional dynamics of online discussions can help communities to better manage conversations.
The need for emotional inference from text continues to diversify as more and more disciplines integrate emotions into their theories and applications. These needs include inferring different emotion types, handling multiple languages, and different annotation formats. A shared model between different configurations would enable the sharing of knowledge and a decrease in training costs, and would simplify the process of deploying emotion recognition models in novel environments. In this work, we study how we can build a single model that can transition between these different configurations by leveraging multilingual models and Demux, a transformer-based model whose input includes the emotions of interest, enabling us to dynamically change the emotions predicted by the model. Demux also produces emotion embeddings, and performing operations on them allows us to transition to clusters of emotions by pooling the embeddings of each cluster. We show that Demux can simultaneously transfer knowledge in a zero-shot manner to a new language, to a novel annotation format and to unseen emotions. Code is available at https://github.com/gchochla/Demux-MEmo .
Detecting emotions expressed in text has become critical to a range of fields. In this work, we investigate ways to exploit label correlations in multi-label emotion recognition models to improve emotion detection. First, we develop two modeling approaches to the problem in order to capture word associations of the emotion words themselves, by either including the emotions in the input, or by leveraging Masked Language Modeling (MLM). Second, we integrate pairwise constraints of emotion representations as regularization terms alongside the classification loss of the models. We split these terms into two categories, local and global. The former dynamically change based on the gold labels, while the latter remain static during training. We demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across Spanish, English, and Arabic in SemEval 2018 Task 1 E-c using monolingual BERT-based models. On top of better performance, we also demonstrate improved robustness. Code is available at https://github.com/gchochla/Demux-MEmo.
Morality plays an important role in culture, identity, and emotion. Recent advances in natural language processing have shown that it is possible to classify moral values expressed in text at scale. Morality classification relies on human annotators to label the moral expressions in text, which provides training data to achieve state-of-the-art performance. However, these annotations are inherently subjective and some of the instances are hard to classify, resulting in noisy annotations due to error or lack of agreement. The presence of noise in training data harms the classifier's ability to accurately recognize moral foundations from text. We propose two metrics to audit the noise of annotations. The first metric is entropy of instance labels, which is a proxy measure of annotator disagreement about how the instance should be labeled. The second metric is the silhouette coefficient of a label assigned by an annotator to an instance. This metric leverages the idea that instances with the same label should have similar latent representations, and deviations from collective judgments are indicative of errors. Our experiments on three widely used moral foundations datasets show that removing noisy annotations based on the proposed metrics improves classification performance.
Stance detection infers a text author's attitude towards a target. This is challenging when the model lacks background knowledge about the target. Here, we show how background knowledge from Wikipedia can help enhance the performance on stance detection. We introduce Wikipedia Stance Detection BERT (WS-BERT) that infuses the knowledge into stance encoding. Extensive results on three benchmark datasets covering social media discussions and online debates indicate that our model significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on target-specific stance detection, cross-target stance detection, and zero/few-shot stance detection.
While developments in machine learning led to impressive performance gains on big data, many human subjects data are, in actuality, small and sparsely labeled. Existing methods applied to such data often do not easily generalize to out-of-sample subjects. Instead, models must make predictions on test data that may be drawn from a different distribution, a problem known as \textit{zero-shot learning}. To address this challenge, we develop an end-to-end framework using a meta-learning approach, which enables the model to rapidly adapt to a new prediction task with limited training data for out-of-sample test data. We use three real-world small-scale human subjects datasets (two randomized control studies and one observational study), for which we predict treatment outcomes for held-out treatment groups. Our model learns the latent treatment effects of each intervention and, by design, can naturally handle multi-task predictions. We show that our model performs the best holistically for each held-out group and especially when the test group is distinctly different from the training group. Our model has implications for improved generalization of small-size human studies to the wider population.
Algorithms that aid human tasks, such as recommendation systems, are ubiquitous. They appear in everything from social media to streaming videos to online shopping. However, the feedback loop between people and algorithms is poorly understood and can amplify cognitive and social biases (algorithmic confounding), leading to unexpected outcomes. In this work, we explore algorithmic confounding in collaborative filtering-based recommendation algorithms through teacher-student learning simulations. Namely, a student collaborative filtering-based model, trained on simulated choices, is used by the recommendation algorithm to recommend items to agents. Agents might choose some of these items, according to an underlying teacher model, with new choices then fed back into the student model as new training data (approximating online machine learning). These simulations demonstrate how algorithmic confounding produces erroneous recommendations which in turn lead to instability, i.e., wide variations in an item's popularity between each simulation realization. We use the simulations to demonstrate a novel approach to training collaborative filtering models that can create more stable and accurate recommendations. Our methodology is general enough that it can be extended to other socio-technical systems in order to better quantify and improve the stability of algorithms. These results highlight the need to account for emergent behaviors from interactions between people and algorithms.
The popularity of online gaming has grown dramatically, driven in part by streaming and the billion-dollar e-sports industry. Online games regularly update their software to fix bugs, add functionality that improve the game's look and feel, and change the game mechanics to keep the games fun and challenging. An open question, however, is the impact of these changes on player performance and game balance, as well as how players adapt to these sudden changes. To address these questions, we use causal inference to measure the impact of software patches to League of Legends, a popular team-based multiplayer online game. We show that game patches have substantially different impacts on players depending on their skill level and whether they take breaks between games. We find that the gap between good and bad players increases after a patch, despite efforts to make gameplay more equal. Moreover, longer between-game breaks tend to improve player performance after patches. Overall, our results highlight the utility of causal inference, and specifically heterogeneous treatment effect estimation, as a tool to quantify the complex mechanisms of game balance and its interplay with players' performance.