Kenneth Joseph

Navid Madani, Rohini K. Srihari, Kenneth Joseph

Answering questions over domain-specific graphs requires a tailored approach due to the limited number of relations and the specific nature of the domain. Our approach integrates classic logical programming languages into large language models (LLMs), enabling the utilization of logical reasoning capabilities to tackle the KGQA task. By representing the questions as Prolog queries, which are readable and near close to natural language in representation, we facilitate the generation of programmatically derived answers. To validate the effectiveness of our approach, we evaluate it using a well-known benchmark dataset, MetaQA. Our experimental results demonstrate that our method achieves accurate identification of correct answer entities for all test questions, even when trained on a small fraction of annotated data. Overall, our work presents a promising approach to addressing question answering over domain-specific graphs, offering an explainable and robust solution by incorporating logical programming languages.

Owen Lee, Kenneth Joseph

This paper presents the first large-scale analysis of public-facing chatbots on Character.AI, a rapidly growing social media platform where users create and interact with chatbots. Character.AI is distinctive in that it merges generative AI with user-generated content, enabling users to build bots for others to engage with. It is also popular, with over 20 million monthly active users, and impactful, with headlines detailing significant issues with youth engagement on the site. Character.AI is thus of interest to study both substantively and conceptually. To this end, we present a descriptive overview using a dataset of 2.1 million English-language prompts (or "greetings") from chatbots on the site, created by around 1 million users. Our work explores the prevalence of different fandoms on the site, broader tropes that persist across fandoms, and how dynamics of power intersect with gender within greetings. Overall, our findings illuminate an emerging form of online (para)social interaction at a unique and important intersection between generative AI and user-generated content.

Kenneth Joseph, Kim Williams, David Lazer

NLP+CSS work has operationalized ideology almost exclusively on a left/right partisan axis. This approach obscures the fact that people hold interpretations of many different complex and more specific ideologies on issues like race, climate, and gender. We introduce a framework that understands ideology as an attributed, multi-level socio-cognitive concept network, and explains how ideology manifests in discourse in relation to other relevant social processes like framing. We demonstrate how this framework can clarifies overlaps between existing NLP tasks (e.g. stance detection and natural language inference) and also how it reveals new research directions. Our work provides a unique and important bridge between computational methods and ideology theory, enabling richer analysis of social discourse in a way that benefits both fields.

Steven Wang, Kyle Hunt, Shaojie Tang et al.

There is ongoing debate about whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as substitutes for human participants in survey and experimental research. While recent work in fields such as marketing and psychology has explored the potential of LLM-based simulation, a growing body of evidence cautions against this practice: LLMs often fail to align with real human behavior, exhibiting limited diversity, systematic misalignment for minority subgroups, insufficient within-group variance, and discrepancies between stated beliefs and actions. This study examines an important and distinct question in this domain: whether fine-tuning on a small subset of human survey data, such as that obtainable from a pilot study, can mitigate these issues and yield realistic simulated outcomes. Using a behavioral experiment on information disclosure, we compare human and LLM-generated responses across multiple dimensions, including distributional divergence, subgroup alignment, belief-action coherence, and the recovery of regression coefficients. We find that fine-tuning on small human samples substantially improves heterogeneity, alignment, and belief-action coherence relative to the base model. However, even the best-performing fine-tuned models fail to reproduce the regression coefficients of the original study, suggesting that LLM-generated data remain unsuitable for replacing human participants in formal inferential analyses.

Navid Madani, Rabiraj Bandyopadhyay, Briony Swire-Thompson et al.

Social media platforms provide users with a profile description field, commonly known as a ``bio," where they can present themselves to the world. A growing literature shows that text in these bios can improve our understanding of online self-presentation and behavior, but existing work relies exclusively on keyword-based approaches to do so. We here propose and evaluate a suite of \hl{simple, effective, and theoretically motivated} approaches to embed bios in spaces that capture salient dimensions of social meaning, such as age and partisanship. We \hl{evaluate our methods on four tasks, showing that the strongest one out-performs several practical baselines.} We then show the utility of our method in helping understand associations between self-presentation and the sharing of URLs from low-quality news sites on Twitter\hl{, with a particular focus on explore the interactions between age and partisanship, and exploring the effects of self-presentations of religiosity}. Our work provides new tools to help computational social scientists make use of information in bios, and provides new insights into how misinformation sharing may be perceived on Twitter.

Stefania Ionescu, Yuhao Du, Kenneth Joseph et al.

Two-sided matching markets have long existed to pair agents in the absence of regulated exchanges. A common example is school choice, where a matching mechanism uses student and school preferences to assign students to schools. In such settings, forming preferences is both difficult and critical. Prior work has suggested various prediction mechanisms that help agents make decisions about their preferences. Although often deployed together, these matching and prediction mechanisms are almost always analyzed separately. The present work shows that at the intersection of the two lies a previously unexplored type of strategic behavior: agents returning to the market (e.g., schools) can attack future predictions by interacting short-term non-optimally with their matches. Here, we first introduce this type of strategic behavior, which we call an `adversarial interaction attack'. Next, we construct a formal economic model that captures the feedback loop between prediction mechanisms designed to assist agents and the matching mechanism used to pair them. This economic model allows us to analyze adversarial interaction attacks. Finally, using school choice as an example, we build a simulation to show that, as the trust in and accuracy of predictions increases, schools gain progressively more by initiating an adversarial interaction attack. We also show that this attack increases inequality in the student population.

Yuhao Du, Kenneth Joseph

Existing methods for debiasing word embeddings often do so only superficially, in that words that are stereotypically associated with, e.g., a particular gender in the original embedding space can still be clustered together in the debiased space. However, there has yet to be a study that explores why this residual clustering exists, and how it might be addressed. The present work fills this gap. We identify two potential reasons for which residual bias exists and develop a new pipeline, MDR Cluster-Debias, to mitigate this bias. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of our method, finding that it significantly outperforms other existing debiasing approaches on a variety of upstream bias tests but achieves limited improvement on decreasing gender bias in a downstream task. This indicates that word embeddings encode gender bias in still other ways, not necessarily captured by upstream tests.

Kenneth Joseph, Jonathan H. Morgan

Social biases are encoded in word embeddings. This presents a unique opportunity to study society historically and at scale, and a unique danger when embeddings are used in downstream applications. Here, we investigate the extent to which publicly-available word embeddings accurately reflect beliefs about certain kinds of people as measured via traditional survey methods. We find that biases found in word embeddings do, on average, closely mirror survey data across seventeen dimensions of social meaning. However, we also find that biases in embeddings are much more reflective of survey data for some dimensions of meaning (e.g. gender) than others (e.g. race), and that we can be highly confident that embedding-based measures reflect survey data only for the most salient biases.

Jason Radford, Kenneth Joseph

Research at the intersection of machine learning and the social sciences has provided critical new insights into social behavior. At the same time, a variety of critiques have been raised ranging from technical issues with the data used and features constructed, problematic assumptions built into models, their limited interpretability, and their contribution to bias and inequality. We argue such issues arise primarily because of the lack of social theory at various stages of the model building and analysis. In the first half of this paper, we walk through how social theory can be used to answer the basic methodological and interpretive questions that arise at each stage of the machine learning pipeline. In the second half, we show how theory can be used to assess and compare the quality of different social learning models, including interpreting, generalizing, and assessing the fairness of models. We believe this paper can act as a guide for computer and social scientists alike to navigate the substantive questions involved in applying the tools of machine learning to social data.