Whose Emotions and Moral Sentiments Do Language Models Reflect?

Language models (LMs) are known to represent the perspectives of some social groups better than others, which may impact their performance, especially on subjective tasks such as content moderation and hate speech detection. To explore how LMs represent different perspectives, existing research focused on positional alignment, i.e., how closely the models mimic the opinions and stances of different groups, e.g., liberals or conservatives. However, human communication also encompasses emotional and moral dimensions. We define the problem of affective alignment, which measures how LMs' emotional and moral tone represents those of different groups. By comparing the affect of responses generated by 36 LMs to the affect of Twitter messages, we observe significant misalignment of LMs with both ideological groups. This misalignment is larger than the partisan divide in the U.S. Even after steering the LMs towards specific ideological perspectives, the misalignment and liberal tendencies of the model persist, suggesting a systemic bias within LMs.

Reading Between the Tweets: Deciphering Ideological Stances of Interconnected Mixed-Ideology Communities

Recent advances in NLP have improved our ability to understand the nuanced worldviews of online communities. Existing research focused on probing ideological stances treats liberals and conservatives as separate groups. However, this fails to account for the nuanced views of the organically formed online communities and the connections between them. In this paper, we study discussions of the 2020 U.S. election on Twitter to identify complex interacting communities. Capitalizing on this interconnectedness, we introduce a novel approach that harnesses message passing when finetuning language models (LMs) to probe the nuanced ideologies of these communities. By comparing the responses generated by LMs and real-world survey results, our method shows higher alignment than existing baselines, highlighting the potential of using LMs in revealing complex ideologies within and across interconnected mixed-ideology communities.

Inducing Political Bias Allows Language Models Anticipate Partisan Reactions to Controversies

Social media platforms are rife with politically charged discussions. Therefore, accurately deciphering and predicting partisan biases using Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly critical. In this study, we address the challenge of understanding political bias in digitized discourse using LLMs. While traditional approaches often rely on finetuning separate models for each political faction, our work innovates by employing a singular, instruction-tuned LLM to reflect a spectrum of political ideologies. We present a comprehensive analytical framework, consisting of Partisan Bias Divergence Assessment and Partisan Class Tendency Prediction, to evaluate the model's alignment with real-world political ideologies in terms of stances, emotions, and moral foundations. Our findings reveal the model's effectiveness in capturing emotional and moral nuances, albeit with some challenges in stance detection, highlighting the intricacies and potential for refinement in NLP tools for politically sensitive contexts. This research contributes significantly to the field by demonstrating the feasibility and importance of nuanced political understanding in LLMs, particularly for applications requiring acute awareness of political bias.

A Data Fusion Framework for Multi-Domain Morality Learning

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.

Inherent Trade-offs in the Fair Allocation of Treatments

Explicit and implicit bias clouds human judgement, leading to discriminatory treatment of minority groups. A fundamental goal of algorithmic fairness is to avoid the pitfalls in human judgement by learning policies that improve the overall outcomes while providing fair treatment to protected classes. In this paper, we propose a causal framework that learns optimal intervention policies from data subject to fairness constraints. We define two measures of treatment bias and infer best treatment assignment that minimizes the bias while optimizing overall outcome. We demonstrate that there is a dilemma of balancing fairness and overall benefit; however, allowing preferential treatment to protected classes in certain circumstances (affirmative action) can dramatically improve the overall benefit while also preserving fairness. We apply our framework to data containing student outcomes on standardized tests and show how it can be used to design real-world policies that fairly improve student test scores. Our framework provides a principled way to learn fair treatment policies in real-world settings.