Ujwal Gadiraju

Gaole He, Lucie Kuiper, Ujwal Gadiraju

The dazzling promises of AI systems to augment humans in various tasks hinge on whether humans can appropriately rely on them. Recent research has shown that appropriate reliance is the key to achieving complementary team performance in AI-assisted decision making. This paper addresses an under-explored problem of whether the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) among people can hinder their appropriate reliance on AI systems. DKE is a metacognitive bias due to which less-competent individuals overestimate their own skill and performance. Through an empirical study (N = 249), we explored the impact of DKE on human reliance on an AI system, and whether such effects can be mitigated using a tutorial intervention that reveals the fallibility of AI advice, and exploiting logic units-based explanations to improve user understanding of AI advice. We found that participants who overestimate their performance tend to exhibit under-reliance on AI systems, which hinders optimal team performance. Logic units-based explanations did not help users in either improving the calibration of their competence or facilitating appropriate reliance. While the tutorial intervention was highly effective in helping users calibrate their self-assessment and facilitating appropriate reliance among participants with overestimated self-assessment, we found that it can potentially hurt the appropriate reliance of participants with underestimated self-assessment. Our work has broad implications on the design of methods to tackle user cognitive biases while facilitating appropriate reliance on AI systems. Our findings advance the current understanding of the role of self-assessment in shaping trust and reliance in human-AI decision making. This lays out promising future directions for relevant HCI research in this community.

Gaole He, Abri Bharos, Ujwal Gadiraju

Powerful predictive AI systems have demonstrated great potential in augmenting human decision making. Recent empirical work has argued that the vision for optimal human-AI collaboration requires 'appropriate reliance' of humans on AI systems. However, accurately estimating the trustworthiness of AI advice at the instance level is quite challenging, especially in the absence of performance feedback pertaining to the AI system. In practice, the performance disparity of machine learning models on out-of-distribution data makes the dataset-specific performance feedback unreliable in human-AI collaboration. Inspired by existing literature on critical thinking and a critical mindset, we propose the use of debugging an AI system as an intervention to foster appropriate reliance. In this paper, we explore whether a critical evaluation of AI performance within a debugging setting can better calibrate users' assessment of an AI system and lead to more appropriate reliance. Through a quantitative empirical study (N = 234), we found that our proposed debugging intervention does not work as expected in facilitating appropriate reliance. Instead, we observe a decrease in reliance on the AI system after the intervention -- potentially resulting from an early exposure to the AI system's weakness. We explore the dynamics of user confidence and user estimation of AI trustworthiness across groups with different performance levels to help explain how inappropriate reliance patterns occur. Our findings have important implications for designing effective interventions to facilitate appropriate reliance and better human-AI collaboration.

Anne Arzberger, Celine Offerman, Ujwal Gadiraju et al.

AI alignment relies on annotator judgments, yet annotation pipelines often treat annotators as interchangeable, obscuring how their social position shapes annotation. We introduce reflexive annotating as a probe that invites crowd workers to reflect on how their positionality informs subjective annotation judgments in a language model alignment context. Through a qualitative study with crowd workers (N=30) and follow-up interviews (N=5), we examine how our probe shapes annotators' behaviour, experience, and the situated metadata it elicits. We find that reflexive annotating captures epistemic metadata beyond static demographics by eliciting intersectional reasoning, surfacing positional humility, and nudging viewpoint change. Crucially, we also denote tensions between reflexive engagement and affective demands such as emotional exposure. We discuss the implications of our work for richer value elicitation and alignment practices that treat annotator judgments as situated and selectively integrate positional metadata.

Agathe Balayn, Yulu Pi, David Gray Widder et al.

This workshop will grow and consolidate a community of interdisciplinary CSCW researchers focusing on the topic of contestable AI. As an outcome of the workshop, we will synthesize the most pressing opportunities and challenges for contestability along AI value chains in the form of a research roadmap. This roadmap will help shape and inspire imminent work in this field. Considering the length and depth of AI value chains, it will especially spur discussions around the contestability of AI systems along various sites of such chains. The workshop will serve as a platform for dialogue and demonstrations of concrete, successful, and unsuccessful examples of AI systems that (could or should) have been contested, to identify requirements, obstacles, and opportunities for designing and deploying contestable AI in various contexts. This will be held primarily as an in-person workshop, with some hybrid accommodation. The day will consist of individual presentations and group activities to stimulate ideation and inspire broad reflections on the field of contestable AI. Our aim is to facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue by bringing together researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to foster the design and deployment of contestable AI.

Garrett Allen, Gaole He, Ujwal Gadiraju

We are amidst an explosion of artificial intelligence research, particularly around large language models (LLMs). These models have a range of applications across domains like medicine, finance, commonsense knowledge graphs, and crowdsourcing. Investigation into LLMs as part of crowdsourcing workflows remains an under-explored space. The crowdsourcing research community has produced a body of work investigating workflows and methods for managing complex tasks using hybrid human-AI methods. Within crowdsourcing, the role of LLMs can be envisioned as akin to a cog in a larger wheel of workflows. From an empirical standpoint, little is currently understood about how LLMs can improve the effectiveness of crowdsourcing workflows and how such workflows can be evaluated. In this work, we present a vision for exploring this gap from the perspectives of various stakeholders involved in the crowdsourcing paradigm -- the task requesters, crowd workers, platforms, and end-users. We identify junctures in typical crowdsourcing workflows at which the introduction of LLMs can play a beneficial role and propose means to augment existing design patterns for crowd work.

Simran Kaur, Sara Salimzadeh, Ujwal Gadiraju

AI has revolutionised decision-making across various fields. Yet human judgement remains paramount for high-stakes decision-making. This has fueled explorations of collaborative decision-making between humans and AI systems, aiming to leverage the strengths of both. To explore this dynamic, researchers conduct empirical studies, investigating how humans use AI assistance for decision-making and how this collaboration impacts results. A critical aspect of conducting these studies is the role of participants, often recruited through crowdsourcing platforms. The validity of these studies hinges on the behaviours of the participants, hence effective incentives that can potentially affect these behaviours are a key part of designing and executing these studies. In this work, we aim to address the critical role of incentive design for conducting empirical human-AI decision-making studies, focusing on understanding, designing, and documenting incentive schemes. Through a thematic review of existing research, we explored the current practices, challenges, and opportunities associated with incentive design for human-AI decision-making empirical studies. We identified recurring patterns, or themes, such as what comprises the components of an incentive scheme, how incentive schemes are manipulated by researchers, and the impact they can have on research outcomes. Leveraging the acquired understanding, we curated a set of guidelines to aid researchers in designing effective incentive schemes for their studies, called the Incentive-Tuning Framework, outlining how researchers can undertake, reflect on, and document the incentive design process. By advocating for a standardised yet flexible approach to incentive design and contributing valuable insights along with practical tools, we hope to pave the way for more reliable and generalizable knowledge in the field of human-AI decision-making.

Junjie Wang, Gaole He, Alisa Rieger et al.

Compared to search engine result pages (SERPs), AI-generated podcasts represent a relatively new and relatively more passive modality of information consumption, delivering narratives in a naturally engaging format. As these two media increasingly converge in everyday information-seeking behavior, it is essential to explore how their interaction influences user attitudes, particularly in contexts involving controversial, value-laden, and often debated topics. Addressing this need, we aim to understand how information mediums of present-day SERPs and AI-generated podcasts interact to shape the opinions of users. To this end, through a controlled user study (N=483), we investigated user attitudinal effects of consuming information via SERPs and AI-generated podcasts, focusing on how the sequence and modality of exposure shape user opinions. A majority of users in our study corresponded to attitude change outcomes, and we found an effect of sequence on attitude change. Our results further revealed a role of viewpoint bias and the degree of topic controversiality in shaping attitude change, although we found no effect of individual moderators.

Alexander Erlei, Federico Cau, Radoslav Georgiev et al.

AI consumer markets are characterized by severe buyer-supplier market asymmetries. Complex AI systems can appear highly accurate while making costly errors or embedding hidden defects. While there have been regulatory efforts surrounding different forms of disclosure, large information gaps remain. This paper provides the first experimental evidence on the important role of information asymmetries and disclosure designs in shaping user adoption of AI systems. We systematically vary the density of low-quality AI systems and the depth of disclosure requirements in a simulated AI product market to gauge how people react to the risk of accidentally relying on a low-quality AI system. Then, we compare participants' choices to a rational Bayesian model, analyzing the degree to which partial information disclosure can improve AI adoption. Our results underscore the deleterious effects of information asymmetries on AI adoption, but also highlight the potential of partial disclosure designs to improve the overall efficiency of human decision-making.

Marie-Therese Sekwenz, Shreyan Biswas, Rita Hermann-Gsenger et al.

Illegal content reporting mechanisms are a key technical and organizational measure through which online platforms address illegal content under the European Union Digital Services Act (DSA). Article 16 requires user notices to be sufficiently substantiated and submitted in good faith, placing users in the difficult position of interpreting legal and procedural language and translating ambiguous content into legally meaningful categories and reasons. We investigate how large language model (LLM)-based assistants can support this reporting process. In a controlled user study (N = 450) using an interface modeled on a major platform reporting workflow, we compare three conditions: unaided reporting, a conventional explainable AI assistant (XAI) that suggests a single legal category with a rationale, and an evaluative AI assistant (EvalAI) that presents balanced pro and con arguments across candidate legal provisions. We further examine these assistance forms under systematically varied AI error regimes. Our results show that EvalAI improves provision-level accuracy under AI error and reduces misclassification distance relative to conventional XAI, particularly for near-miss and overbreadth errors. When AI output is correct, conventional XAI enables faster decisions, but neither AI assistance form reliably improves the quality of users' substantiated explanations relative to unaided reporting. We discuss design implications for compliance-oriented reporting interfaces, highlighting trade-offs between accuracy, deliberation, explanation quality, and vulnerability to misleading AI output.

Gaole He, Nilay Aishwarya, Ujwal Gadiraju

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods are being proposed to help interpret and understand how AI systems reach specific predictions. Inspired by prior work on conversational user interfaces, we argue that augmenting existing XAI methods with conversational user interfaces can increase user engagement and boost user understanding of the AI system. In this paper, we explored the impact of a conversational XAI interface on users' understanding of the AI system, their trust, and reliance on the AI system. In comparison to an XAI dashboard, we found that the conversational XAI interface can bring about a better understanding of the AI system among users and higher user trust. However, users of both the XAI dashboard and conversational XAI interfaces showed clear overreliance on the AI system. Enhanced conversations powered by large language model (LLM) agents amplified over-reliance. Based on our findings, we reason that the potential cause of such overreliance is the illusion of explanatory depth that is concomitant with both XAI interfaces. Our findings have important implications for designing effective conversational XAI interfaces to facilitate appropriate reliance and improve human-AI collaboration. Code can be found at https://github.com/delftcrowd/IUI2025_ConvXAI

Gaole He, Gianluca Demartini, Ujwal Gadiraju

Since the explosion in popularity of ChatGPT, large language models (LLMs) have continued to impact our everyday lives. Equipped with external tools that are designed for a specific purpose (e.g., for flight booking or an alarm clock), LLM agents exercise an increasing capability to assist humans in their daily work. Although LLM agents have shown a promising blueprint as daily assistants, there is a limited understanding of how they can provide daily assistance based on planning and sequential decision making capabilities. We draw inspiration from recent work that has highlighted the value of 'LLM-modulo' setups in conjunction with humans-in-the-loop for planning tasks. We conducted an empirical study (N = 248) of LLM agents as daily assistants in six commonly occurring tasks with different levels of risk typically associated with them (e.g., flight ticket booking and credit card payments). To ensure user agency and control over the LLM agent, we adopted LLM agents in a plan-then-execute manner, wherein the agents conducted step-wise planning and step-by-step execution in a simulation environment. We analyzed how user involvement at each stage affects their trust and collaborative team performance. Our findings demonstrate that LLM agents can be a double-edged sword -- (1) they can work well when a high-quality plan and necessary user involvement in execution are available, and (2) users can easily mistrust the LLM agents with plans that seem plausible. We synthesized key insights for using LLM agents as daily assistants to calibrate user trust and achieve better overall task outcomes. Our work has important implications for the future design of daily assistants and human-AI collaboration with LLM agents.

Rishav Hada, Safiya Husain, Varun Gumma et al. · microsoft-research

Existing research in measuring and mitigating gender bias predominantly centers on English, overlooking the intricate challenges posed by non-English languages and the Global South. This paper presents the first comprehensive study delving into the nuanced landscape of gender bias in Hindi, the third most spoken language globally. Our study employs diverse mining techniques, computational models, field studies and sheds light on the limitations of current methodologies. Given the challenges faced with mining gender biased statements in Hindi using existing methods, we conducted field studies to bootstrap the collection of such sentences. Through field studies involving rural and low-income community women, we uncover diverse perceptions of gender bias, underscoring the necessity for context-specific approaches. This paper advocates for a community-centric research design, amplifying voices often marginalized in previous studies. Our findings not only contribute to the understanding of gender bias in Hindi but also establish a foundation for further exploration of Indic languages. By exploring the intricacies of this understudied context, we call for thoughtful engagement with gender bias, promoting inclusivity and equity in linguistic and cultural contexts beyond the Global North.

Shreyan Biswas, Alexander Erlei, Ujwal Gadiraju

Recent advances in generative AI have precipitated a proliferation of novel writing assistants. These systems typically rely on multilingual large language models (LLMs), providing globalized workers the ability to revise or create diverse forms of content in different languages. However, there is substantial evidence indicating that the performance of multilingual LLMs varies between languages. Users who employ writing assistance for multiple languages are therefore susceptible to disparate output quality. Importantly, recent research has shown that people tend to generalize algorithmic errors across independent tasks, violating the behavioral axiom of choice independence. In this paper, we analyze whether user utilization of novel writing assistants in a charity advertisement writing task is affected by the AI's performance in a second language. Furthermore, we quantify the extent to which these patterns translate into the persuasiveness of generated charity advertisements, as well as the role of peoples' beliefs about LLM utilization in their donation choices. Our results provide evidence that writers who engage with an LLM-based writing assistant violate choice independence, as prior exposure to a Spanish LLM reduces subsequent utilization of an English LLM. While these patterns do not affect the aggregate persuasiveness of the generated advertisements, people's beliefs about the source of an advertisement (human versus AI) do. In particular, Spanish-speaking female participants who believed that they read an AI-generated advertisement strongly adjusted their donation behavior downwards. Furthermore, people are generally not able to adequately differentiate between human-generated and LLM-generated ads. Our work has important implications for the design, development, integration, and adoption of multilingual LLMs as assistive agents -- particularly in writing tasks.

Susanne Gaube, Markus Langer, Tim Miller et al.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in high-risk, decision-making scenarios presents technical, safety, and normative challenges; problems that may only be ameliorated by human oversight. However, notions of human oversight lack a common foundational understanding: oversight architectures are not well defined, the roles involved remain unclear, and implementation steps are opaque. Hence, researchers and practitioners struggle to determine how to design, implement, and evaluate systems that enable effective human oversight. This paper advances a practical framework for effective human oversight of AI systems, based on a cross-disciplinary perspective that draws on insights from computer science, human-computer interaction, psychology, philosophy, and law. The core contributions are: (1) a foundational framework, with a working definition, architecture and processes for effective human oversight of AI systems; (2) an initial template for documenting oversight architectures and processes, applied to diverse domains; and (3) a synthesis of open research challenges that need to be considered in the emerging field of effective human oversight of AI systems.

Gaole He, Patrick Hemmer, Michael Vössing et al.

In recent years, the rapid development of AI systems has brought about the benefits of intelligent services but also concerns about security and reliability. By fostering appropriate user reliance on an AI system, both complementary team performance and reduced human workload can be achieved. Previous empirical studies have extensively analyzed the impact of factors ranging from task, system, and human behavior on user trust and appropriate reliance in the context of one-step decision making. However, user reliance on AI systems in tasks with complex semantics that require multi-step workflows remains under-explored. Inspired by recent work on task decomposition with large language models, we propose to investigate the impact of a novel Multi-Step Transparent (MST) decision workflow on user reliance behaviors. We conducted an empirical study (N = 233) of AI-assisted decision making in composite fact-checking tasks (i.e., fact-checking tasks that entail multiple sub-fact verification steps). Our findings demonstrate that human-AI collaboration with an MST decision workflow can outperform one-step collaboration in specific contexts (e.g., when advice from an AI system is misleading). Further analysis of the appropriate reliance at fine-grained levels indicates that an MST decision workflow can be effective when users demonstrate a relatively high consideration of the intermediate steps. Our work highlights that there is no one-size-fits-all decision workflow that can help obtain optimal human-AI collaboration. Our insights help deepen the understanding of the role of decision workflows in facilitating appropriate reliance. We synthesize important implications for designing effective means to facilitate appropriate reliance on AI systems in composite tasks, positioning opportunities for the human-centered AI and broader HCI communities.

Siddharth Mehrotra, Ujwal Gadiraju, Eva Bittner et al.

In today's society, where Artificial Intelligence (AI) has gained a vital role, concerns regarding user's trust have garnered significant attention. The use of AI systems in high-risk domains have often led users to either under-trust it, potentially causing inadequate reliance or over-trust it, resulting in over-compliance. Therefore, users must maintain an appropriate level of trust. Past research has indicated that explanations provided by AI systems can enhance user understanding of when to trust or not trust the system. However, the utility of presentation of different explanations forms still remains to be explored especially in high-risk domains. Therefore, this study explores the impact of different explanation types (text, visual, and hybrid) and user expertise (retired police officers and lay users) on establishing appropriate trust in AI-based predictive policing. While we observed that the hybrid form of explanations increased the subjective trust in AI for expert users, it did not led to better decision-making. Furthermore, no form of explanations helped build appropriate trust. The findings of our study emphasize the importance of re-evaluating the use of explanations to build [appropriate] trust in AI based systems especially when the system's use is questionable. Finally, we synthesize potential challenges and policy recommendations based on our results to design for appropriate trust in high-risk based AI-based systems.

Garrett Allen, Jie Yang, Maria Soledad Pera et al.

We present pathways of investigation regarding conversational user interfaces (CUIs) for children in the classroom. We highlight anticipated challenges to be addressed in order to advance knowledge on CUIs for children. Further, we discuss preliminary ideas on strategies for evaluation.

Maximilian Idahl, Lijun Lyu, Ujwal Gadiraju et al.

Post-hoc explanation methods are an important class of approaches that help understand the rationale underlying a trained model's decision. But how useful are they for an end-user towards accomplishing a given task? In this vision paper, we argue the need for a benchmark to facilitate evaluations of the utility of post-hoc explanation methods. As a first step to this end, we enumerate desirable properties that such a benchmark should possess for the task of debugging text classifiers. Additionally, we highlight that such a benchmark facilitates not only assessing the effectiveness of explanations but also their efficiency.

Zijian Zhang, Jaspreet Singh, Ujwal Gadiraju et al.

Complex machine learning models are deployed in several critical domains including healthcare and autonomous vehicles nowadays, albeit as functional black boxes. Consequently, there has been a recent surge in interpreting decisions of such complex models in order to explain their actions to humans. Models that correspond to human interpretation of a task are more desirable in certain contexts and can help attribute liability, build trust, expose biases and in turn build better models. It is, therefore, crucial to understand how and which models conform to human understanding of tasks. In this paper, we present a large-scale crowdsourcing study that reveals and quantifies the dissonance between human and machine understanding, through the lens of an image classification task. In particular, we seek to answer the following questions: Which (well-performing) complex ML models are closer to humans in their use of features to make accurate predictions? How does task difficulty affect the feature selection capability of machines in comparison to humans? Are humans consistently better at selecting features that make image recognition more accurate? Our findings have important implications on human-machine collaboration, considering that a long term goal in the field of artificial intelligence is to make machines capable of learning and reasoning like humans.

Tim Draws, Nava Tintarev, Ujwal Gadiraju et al.

The way pages are ranked in search results influences whether the users of search engines are exposed to more homogeneous, or rather to more diverse viewpoints. However, this viewpoint diversity is not trivial to assess. In this paper we use existing and novel ranking fairness metrics to evaluate viewpoint diversity in search result rankings. We conduct a controlled simulation study that shows how ranking fairness metrics can be used for viewpoint diversity, how their outcome should be interpreted, and which metric is most suitable depending on the situation. This paper lays out important ground work for future research to measure and assess viewpoint diversity in real search result rankings.

Luyan Xu, Xuan Zhou, Ujwal Gadiraju

User-centered approaches have been extensively studied and used in the area of struggling search. Related research has targeted key aspects of users such as user satisfaction or frustration, and search success or failure, using a variety of experimental methods including laboratory user studies, in-situ explicit feedback from searchers and by using crowdsourcing. Such studies are valuable in advancing the understanding of search difficulty from a user's perspective, and yield insights that can directly improve search systems and their evaluation. However, little is known about how user moods influence their interactions with a search system or their perception of struggling. In this work, we show that a user's own mood can systematically bias the user's perception, and experience while interacting with a search system and trying to satisfy an information need. People who are in activated-pleasant / activated-unpleasant moods tend to issue more queries than people in deactivated or neutral moods. Those in an unpleasant mood perceive a higher level of difficulty. Our insights extend the current understanding of struggling search tasks and have important implications on the design and evaluation of search systems supporting such tasks.

Ran Yu, Ujwal Gadiraju, Stefan Dietze

Web search is among the most ubiquitous online activities, commonly used to acquire new knowledge and to satisfy learning-related objectives through informational search sessions. The importance of learning as an outcome of web search has been recognized widely, leading to a variety of research at the intersection of information retrieval, human computer interaction and learning-oriented sciences. Given the lack of explicit information, understanding of users and their learning needs has to be derived from their search behavior and resource interactions. In this paper, we introduce the involved research challenges and survey related work on the detection of learning needs, understanding of users, e.g. with respect to their knowledge state, learning tasks and learning progress throughout a search session as well as the actual consideration of learning needs throughout the retrieval and ranking process. In addition, we summarise our own research contributing to the aforementioned tasks and describe our research agenda in this context.

Ran Yu, Ujwal Gadiraju, Peter Holtz et al.

Web search is frequently used by people to acquire new knowledge and to satisfy learning-related objectives. In this context, informational search missions with an intention to obtain knowledge pertaining to a topic are prominent. The importance of learning as an outcome of web search has been recognized. Yet, there is a lack of understanding of the impact of web search on a user's knowledge state. Predicting the knowledge gain of users can be an important step forward if web search engines that are currently optimized for relevance can be molded to serve learning outcomes. In this paper, we introduce a supervised model to predict a user's knowledge state and knowledge gain from features captured during the search sessions. To measure and predict the knowledge gain of users in informational search sessions, we recruited 468 distinct users using crowdsourcing and orchestrated real-world search sessions spanning 11 different topics and information needs. By using scientifically formulated knowledge tests, we calibrated the knowledge of users before and after their search sessions, quantifying their knowledge gain. Our supervised models utilise and derive a comprehensive set of features from the current state of the art and compare performance of a range of feature sets and feature selection strategies. Through our results, we demonstrate the ability to predict and classify the knowledge state and gain using features obtained during search sessions, exhibiting superior performance to an existing baseline in the knowledge state prediction task.

Besnik Fetahu, Ujwal Gadiraju, Stefan Dietze

The increasing amount of data on the Web, in particular of Linked Data, has led to a diverse landscape of datasets, which make entity retrieval a challenging task. Explicit cross-dataset links, for instance to indicate co-references or related entities can significantly improve entity retrieval. However, only a small fraction of entities are interlinked through explicit statements. In this paper, we propose a two-fold entity retrieval approach. In a first, offline preprocessing step, we cluster entities based on the \emph{x--means} and \emph{spectral} clustering algorithms. In the second step, we propose an optimized retrieval model which takes advantage of our precomputed clusters. For a given set of entities retrieved by the BM25F retrieval approach and a given user query, we further expand the result set with relevant entities by considering features of the queries, entities and the precomputed clusters. Finally, we re-rank the expanded result set with respect to the relevance to the query. We perform a thorough experimental evaluation on the Billions Triple Challenge (BTC12) dataset. The proposed approach shows significant improvements compared to the baseline and state of the art approaches.

Tuan Tran, Claudia Niederée, Nattiya Kanhabua et al.

Long-running, high-impact events such as the Boston Marathon bombing often develop through many stages and involve a large number of entities in their unfolding. Timeline summarization of an event by key sentences eases story digestion, but does not distinguish between what a user remembers and what she might want to re-check. In this work, we present a novel approach for timeline summarization of high-impact events, which uses entities instead of sentences for summarizing the event at each individual point in time. Such entity summaries can serve as both (1) important memory cues in a retrospective event consideration and (2) pointers for personalized event exploration. In order to automatically create such summaries, it is crucial to identify the "right" entities for inclusion. We propose to learn a ranking function for entities, with a dynamically adapted trade-off between the in-document salience of entities and the informativeness of entities across documents, i.e., the level of new information associated with an entity for a time point under consideration. Furthermore, for capturing collective attention for an entity we use an innovative soft labeling approach based on Wikipedia. Our experiments on a real large news datasets confirm the effectiveness of the proposed methods.