arXiv subjects

Maria Glenski

Publications and source records attributed to Maria Glenski.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2024

Exploring the Benefits of Domain-Pretraining of Generative Large Language Models for Chemistry

A proliferation of Large Language Models (the GPT series, BLOOM, LLaMA, and more) are driving forward novel development of multipurpose AI for a variety of tasks, particularly natural language processing (NLP) tasks. These models demonstrate strong performance on a range of tasks; however, there has been evidence of brittleness when applied to more niche or narrow domains where hallucinations or fluent but incorrect responses reduce performance. Given the complex nature of scientific domains, it is prudent to investigate the trade-offs of leveraging off-the-shelf versus more targeted foundation models for scientific domains. In this work, we examine the benefits of in-domain pre-training for a given scientific domain, chemistry, and compare these to open-source, off-the-shelf models with zero-shot and few-shot prompting. Our results show that not only do in-domain base models perform reasonably well on in-domain tasks in a zero-shot setting but that further adaptation using instruction fine-tuning yields impressive performance on chemistry-specific tasks such as named entity recognition and molecular formula generation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Unsupervised Keyphrase Extraction via Interpretable Neural Networks

Keyphrase extraction aims at automatically extracting a list of "important" phrases representing the key concepts in a document. Prior approaches for unsupervised keyphrase extraction resorted to heuristic notions of phrase importance via embedding clustering or graph centrality, requiring extensive domain expertise. Our work presents a simple alternative approach which defines keyphrases as document phrases that are salient for predicting the topic of the document. To this end, we propose INSPECT -- an approach that uses self-explaining models for identifying influential keyphrases in a document by measuring the predictive impact of input phrases on the downstream task of the document topic classification. We show that this novel method not only alleviates the need for ad-hoc heuristics but also achieves state-of-the-art results in unsupervised keyphrase extraction in four datasets across two domains: scientific publications and news articles.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2022

Political Bias and Factualness in News Sharing across more than 100,000 Online Communities

As civil discourse increasingly takes place online, misinformation and the polarization of news shared in online communities have become ever more relevant concerns with real world harms across our society. Studying online news sharing at scale is challenging due to the massive volume of content which is shared by millions of users across thousands of communities. Therefore, existing research has largely focused on specific communities or specific interventions, such as bans. However, understanding the prevalence and spread of misinformation and polarization more broadly, across thousands of online communities, is critical for the development of governance strategies, interventions, and community design. Here, we conduct the largest study of news sharing on reddit to date, analyzing more than 550 million links spanning 4 years. We use non-partisan news source ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check to annotate links to news sources with their political bias and factualness. We find that, compared to left-leaning communities, right-leaning communities have 105% more variance in the political bias of their news sources, and more links to relatively-more biased sources, on average. We observe that reddit users' voting and re-sharing behaviors generally decrease the visibility of extremely biased and low factual content, which receives 20% fewer upvotes and 30% fewer exposures from crossposts than more neutral or more factual content. This suggests that reddit is more resilient to low factual content than Twitter. We show that extremely biased and low factual content is very concentrated, with 99% of such content being shared in only 0.5% of communities, giving credence to the recent strategy of community-wide bans and quarantines.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Adjusting for Confounders with Text: Challenges and an Empirical Evaluation Framework for Causal Inference

Causal inference studies using textual social media data can provide actionable insights on human behavior. Making accurate causal inferences with text requires controlling for confounding which could otherwise impart bias. Recently, many different methods for adjusting for confounders have been proposed, and we show that these existing methods disagree with one another on two datasets inspired by previous social media studies. Evaluating causal methods is challenging, as ground truth counterfactuals are almost never available. Presently, no empirical evaluation framework for causal methods using text exists, and as such, practitioners must select their methods without guidance. We contribute the first such framework, which consists of five tasks drawn from real world studies. Our framework enables the evaluation of any casual inference method using text. Across 648 experiments and two datasets, we evaluate every commonly used causal inference method and identify their strengths and weaknesses to inform social media researchers seeking to use such methods, and guide future improvements. We make all tasks, data, and models public to inform applications and encourage additional research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2022

EXPERT: Public Benchmarks for Dynamic Heterogeneous Academic Graphs

Machine learning models that learn from dynamic graphs face nontrivial challenges in learning and inference as both nodes and edges change over time. The existing large-scale graph benchmark datasets that are widely used by the community primarily focus on homogeneous node and edge attributes and are static. In this work, we present a variety of large scale, dynamic heterogeneous academic graphs to test the effectiveness of models developed for multi-step graph forecasting tasks. Our novel datasets cover both context and content information extracted from scientific publications across two communities: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Nuclear Nonproliferation (NN). In addition, we propose a systematic approach to improve the existing evaluation procedures used in the graph forecasting models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

Identifying Causal Influences on Publication Trends and Behavior: A Case Study of the Computational Linguistics Community

Drawing causal conclusions from observational real-world data is a very much desired but challenging task. In this paper we present mixed-method analyses to investigate causal influences of publication trends and behavior on the adoption, persistence, and retirement of certain research foci -- methodologies, materials, and tasks that are of interest to the computational linguistics (CL) community. Our key findings highlight evidence of the transition to rapidly emerging methodologies in the research community (e.g., adoption of bidirectional LSTMs influencing the retirement of LSTMs), the persistent engagement with trending tasks and techniques (e.g., deep learning, embeddings, generative, and language models), the effect of scientist location from outside the US, e.g., China on propensity of researching languages beyond English, and the potential impact of funding for large-scale research programs. We anticipate this work to provide useful insights about publication trends and behavior and raise the awareness about the potential for causal inference in the computational linguistics and a broader scientific community.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2021

VAINE: Visualization and AI for Natural Experiments

Natural experiments are observational studies where the assignment of treatment conditions to different populations occurs by chance "in the wild". Researchers from fields such as economics, healthcare, and the social sciences leverage natural experiments to conduct hypothesis testing and causal effect estimation for treatment and outcome variables that would otherwise be costly, infeasible, or unethical. In this paper, we introduce VAINE (Visualization and AI for Natural Experiments), a visual analytics tool for identifying and understanding natural experiments from observational data. We then demonstrate how VAINE can be used to validate causal relationships, estimate average treatment effects, and identify statistical phenomena such as Simpson's paradox through two usage scenarios.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Leveraging Community and Author Context to Explain the Performance and Bias of Text-Based Deception Detection Models

Deceptive news posts shared in online communities can be detected with NLP models, and much recent research has focused on the development of such models. In this work, we use characteristics of online communities and authors -- the context of how and where content is posted -- to explain the performance of a neural network deception detection model and identify sub-populations who are disproportionately affected by model accuracy or failure. We examine who is posting the content, and where the content is posted to. We find that while author characteristics are better predictors of deceptive content than community characteristics, both characteristics are strongly correlated with model performance. Traditional performance metrics such as F1 score may fail to capture poor model performance on isolated sub-populations such as specific authors, and as such, more nuanced evaluation of deception detection models is critical.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

Evaluating Deception Detection Model Robustness To Linguistic Variation

With the increasing use of machine-learning driven algorithmic judgements, it is critical to develop models that are robust to evolving or manipulated inputs. We propose an extensive analysis of model robustness against linguistic variation in the setting of deceptive news detection, an important task in the context of misinformation spread online. We consider two prediction tasks and compare three state-of-the-art embeddings to highlight consistent trends in model performance, high confidence misclassifications, and high impact failures. By measuring the effectiveness of adversarial defense strategies and evaluating model susceptibility to adversarial attacks using character- and word-perturbed text, we find that character or mixed ensemble models are the most effective defenses and that character perturbation-based attack tactics are more successful.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2021

Towards Trustworthy Deception Detection: Benchmarking Model Robustness across Domains, Modalities, and Languages

Evaluating model robustness is critical when developing trustworthy models not only to gain deeper understanding of model behavior, strengths, and weaknesses, but also to develop future models that are generalizable and robust across expected environments a model may encounter in deployment. In this paper we present a framework for measuring model robustness for an important but difficult text classification task - deceptive news detection. We evaluate model robustness to out-of-domain data, modality-specific features, and languages other than English. Our investigation focuses on three type of models: LSTM models trained on multiple datasets(Cross-Domain), several fusion LSTM models trained with images and text and evaluated with three state-of-the-art embeddings, BERT ELMo, and GloVe (Cross-Modality), and character-level CNN models trained on multiple languages (Cross-Language). Our analyses reveal a significant drop in performance when testing neural models on out-of-domain data and non-English languages that may be mitigated using diverse training data. We find that with additional image content as input, ELMo embeddings yield significantly fewer errors compared to BERT orGLoVe. Most importantly, this work not only carefully analyzes deception model robustness but also provides a framework of these analyses that can be applied to new models or extended datasets in the future.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2021

Behavior Change in Response to Subreddit Bans and External Events

As more people flock to social media to connect with others and form virtual communities, it is important to research how members of these groups interact to understand human behavior on the Web. In response to an increase in hate speech, harassment and other antisocial behaviors, many social media companies have implemented different content and user moderation policies. On Reddit, for example, communities, i.e, subreddits, are occasionally banned for violating these policies. We study the effect of these regulatory actions as well as when a community experiences a significant external event like a political election or a market crash. Overall, we find that most subreddit bans prompt a small, but statistically significant, number of active users to leave the platform; the effect of external events varies with the type of event. We conclude with a discussion on the effectiveness of the bans and wider implications for the online content moderation.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2020

Measure Utility, Gain Trust: Practical Advice for XAI Researcher

Research into the explanation of machine learning models, i.e., explainable AI (XAI), has seen a commensurate exponential growth alongside deep artificial neural networks throughout the past decade. For historical reasons, explanation and trust have been intertwined. However, the focus on trust is too narrow, and has led the research community astray from tried and true empirical methods that produced more defensible scientific knowledge about people and explanations. To address this, we contribute a practical path forward for researchers in the XAI field. We recommend researchers focus on the utility of machine learning explanations instead of trust. We outline five broad use cases where explanations are useful and, for each, we describe pseudo-experiments that rely on objective empirical measurements and falsifiable hypotheses. We believe that this experimental rigor is necessary to contribute to scientific knowledge in the field of XAI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2020

CrossCheck: Rapid, Reproducible, and Interpretable Model Evaluation

Evaluation beyond aggregate performance metrics, e.g. F1-score, is crucial to both establish an appropriate level of trust in machine learning models and identify future model improvements. In this paper we demonstrate CrossCheck, an interactive visualization tool for rapid crossmodel comparison and reproducible error analysis. We describe the tool and discuss design and implementation details. We then present three use cases (named entity recognition, reading comprehension, and clickbait detection) that show the benefits of using the tool for model evaluation. CrossCheck allows data scientists to make informed decisions to choose between multiple models, identify when the models are correct and for which examples, investigate whether the models are making the same mistakes as humans, evaluate models' generalizability and highlight models' limitations, strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, CrossCheck is implemented as a Jupyter widget, which allows rapid and convenient integration into data scientists' model development workflows.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2019

Multilingual Multimodal Digital Deception Detection and Disinformation Spread across Social Platforms

Our main contribution in this work is novel results of multilingual models that go beyond typical applications of rumor or misinformation detection in English social news content to identify fine-grained classes of digital deception across multiple languages (e.g. Russian, Spanish, etc.). In addition, we present models for multimodal deception detection from images and text and discuss the limitations of image only and text only models. Finally, we elaborate on the ongoing work on measuring deceptive content (in particular disinformation) spread across social platforms.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2019

Improved Forecasting of Cryptocurrency Price using Social Signals

Social media signals have been successfully used to develop large-scale predictive and anticipatory analytics. For example, forecasting stock market prices and influenza outbreaks. Recently, social data has been explored to forecast price fluctuations of cryptocurrencies, which are a novel disruptive technology with significant political and economic implications. In this paper we leverage and contrast the predictive power of social signals, specifically user behavior and communication patterns, from multiple social platforms GitHub and Reddit to forecast prices for three cyptocurrencies with high developer and community interest - Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Monero. We evaluate the performance of neural network models that rely on long short-term memory units (LSTMs) trained on historical price data and social data against price only LSTMs and baseline autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models, commonly used to predict stock prices. Our results not only demonstrate that social signals reduce error when forecasting daily coin price, but also show that the language used in comments within the official communities on Reddit (r/Bitcoin, r/Ethereum, and r/Monero) are the best predictors overall. We observe that models are more accurate in forecasting price one day ahead for Bitcoin (4% root mean squared percent error) compared to Ethereum (7%) and Monero (8%).

q-fin.ST↗

arXiv2018

Propagation from Deceptive News Sources: Who Shares, How Much, How Evenly, and How Quickly?

As people rely on social media as their primary sources of news, the spread of misinformation has become a significant concern. In this large-scale study of news in social media we analyze eleven million posts and investigate propagation behavior of users that directly interact with news accounts identified as spreading trusted versus malicious content. Unlike previous work, which looks at specific rumors, topics, or events, we consider all content propagated by various news sources. Moreover, we analyze and contrast population versus sub-population behaviour (by demographics) when spreading misinformation, and distinguish between two types of propagation, i.e., direct retweets and mentions. Our evaluation examines how evenly, how many, how quickly, and which users propagate content from various types of news sources on Twitter. Our analysis has identified several key differences in propagation behavior from trusted versus suspicious news sources. These include high inequity in the diffusion rate based on the source of disinformation, with a small group of highly active users responsible for the majority of disinformation spread overall and within each demographic. Analysis by demographics showed that users with lower annual income and education share more from disinformation sources compared to their counterparts. News content is shared significantly more quickly from trusted, conspiracy, and disinformation sources compared to clickbait and propaganda. Older users propagate news from trusted sources more quickly than younger users, but they share from suspicious sources after longer delays. Finally, users who interact with clickbait and conspiracy sources are likely to share from propaganda accounts, but not the other way around.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2018

GuessTheKarma: A Game to Assess Social Rating Systems

Popularity systems, like Twitter retweets, Reddit upvotes, and Pinterest pins have the potential to guide people toward posts that others liked. That, however, creates a feedback loop that reduces their informativeness: items marked as more popular get more attention, so that additional upvotes and retweets may simply reflect the increased attention and not independent information about the fraction of people that like the items. How much information remains? For example, how confident can we be that more people prefer item A to item B if item A had hundreds of upvotes on Reddit and item B had only a few? We investigate using an Internet game called GuessTheKarma that collects independent preference judgments (N=20,674) for 400 pairs of images, approximately 50 per pair. Unlike the rating systems that dominate social media services, GuessTheKarma is devoid of social and ranking effects that influence ratings. Overall, Reddit scores were not very good predictors of the true population preferences for items as measured by GuessTheKarma: the image with higher score was preferred by a majority of independent raters only 68% of the time. However, when one image had a low score and the other was one of the highest scoring in its subreddit, the higher scoring image was preferred nearly 90% of the time by the majority of independent raters. Similarly, Imgur view counts for the images were poor predictors except when there were orders of magnitude differences between the pairs. We conclude that popularity systems marked by feedback loops may convey a strong signal about population preferences, but only when comparing items that received vastly different popularity scores.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2018

How Humans versus Bots React to Deceptive and Trusted News Sources: A Case Study of Active Users

Society's reliance on social media as a primary source of news has spawned a renewed focus on the spread of misinformation. In this work, we identify the differences in how social media accounts identified as bots react to news sources of varying credibility, regardless of the veracity of the content those sources have shared. We analyze bot and human responses annotated using a fine-grained model that labels responses as being an answer, appreciation, agreement, disagreement, an elaboration, humor, or a negative reaction. We present key findings of our analysis into the prevalence of bots, the variety and speed of bot and human reactions, and the disparity in authorship of reaction tweets between these two sub-populations. We observe that bots are responsible for 9-15% of the reactions to sources of any given type but comprise only 7-10% of accounts responsible for reaction-tweets; trusted news sources have the highest proportion of humans who reacted; bots respond with significantly shorter delays than humans when posting answer-reactions in response to sources identified as propaganda. Finally, we report significantly different inequality levels in reaction rates for accounts identified as bots vs not.

cs.SI↗