Yu-Ru Lin

Rr. Nefriana, Muheng Yan, Rebecca Hwa et al.

Extremist communities increasingly rely on social media to sustain and amplify divisive discourse. However, the relationship between their internal participation structures, audience engagement, and narrative expression remains underexplored. This study analyzes ten years of Facebook activity by hate groups related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, focusing on anti-Semitic and Islamophobic ideologies. Consistent with prior work, we find that higher participation centralization in online hate groups is associated with greater user engagement across hate ideologies, suggesting the role of key actors in sustaining group activity over time. Meanwhile, our narrative frame detection models--based on an eight-frame extremist taxonomy (e.g., dehumanization, violence justification)--reveal a clear contrast across hate ideologies: centralized Islamophobic groups employ more uniform messaging, while centralized anti-Semitic groups demonstrate greater framing diversity and topical breadth, potentially reflecting distinct historical trajectories and leader coordination patterns. Analysis of the inter-group network indicates that, although centralization and homophily are not clearly linked, ideological distinctions emerge: Islamophobic groups cluster tightly, whereas anti-Semitic groups remain more evenly connected. Overall, these findings clarify how participation structure may shape the dissemination pattern and resonance of extremist narratives online and provide a foundation for tailored strategies to disrupt or mitigate such discourse.

Andrew Aquilina, Chetna Nihalani, Vasudha Varadarajan et al.

LLM chatbots increasingly serve as a first source of support for people in psychological distress, including those whose distress is entangled with delusional beliefs. Prior work on LLM mental-health safety largely evaluates general therapeutic quality or single-turn crisis detection, leaving unclear how models behave when distress is intertwined with delusion over sustained conversations. We address this gap with matched multi-turn simulations, across clinically grounded personas and six LLMs, that pair each delusional conversation with a distress-only control to isolate the effect of delusional framing. This reveals a recognition-intervention gap: models detect distress at comparable rates regardless of framing, yet sharply fail to act on it once distress is embedded in delusion, with safety interventions suppressed by up to 4.5x. The failure tracks accumulated acceptance of the user's premises rather than emotional validation. Worse, the intuitive fix of prompting models to assess user distress backfires under delusional framing; only delusion-aware prompting with explicit response guidance closes the gap, and even this depends on a delusion classifier that is itself unreliable on the most vulnerable models. Safe deployment therefore requires treating delusional framing as a distinct risk signal that overrides conversational accommodation.

Yongsu Ahn, Yu-Ru Lin, Panpan Xu et al.

Classification models learn to generalize the associations between data samples and their target classes. However, researchers have increasingly observed that machine learning practice easily leads to systematic errors in AI applications, a phenomenon referred to as AI blindspots. Such blindspots arise when a model is trained with training samples (e.g., cat/dog classification) where important patterns (e.g., black cats) are missing or periphery/undesirable patterns (e.g., dogs with grass background) are misleading towards a certain class. Even more sophisticated techniques cannot guarantee to capture, reason about, and prevent the spurious associations. In this work, we propose ESCAPE, a visual analytic system that promotes a human-in-the-loop workflow for countering systematic errors. By allowing human users to easily inspect spurious associations, the system facilitates users to spontaneously recognize concepts associated misclassifications and evaluate mitigation strategies that can reduce biased associations. We also propose two statistical approaches, relative concept association to better quantify the associations between a concept and instances, and debias method to mitigate spurious associations. We demonstrate the utility of our proposed ESCAPE system and statistical measures through extensive evaluation including quantitative experiments, usage scenarios, expert interviews, and controlled user experiments.

Xian Teng, Yongsu Ahn, Yu-Ru Lin

Big data and machine learning tools have jointly empowered humans in making data-driven decisions. However, many of them capture empirical associations that might be spurious due to confounding factors and subgroup heterogeneity. The famous Simpson's paradox is such a phenomenon where aggregated and subgroup-level associations contradict with each other, causing cognitive confusions and difficulty in making adequate interpretations and decisions. Existing tools provide little insights for humans to locate, reason about, and prevent pitfalls of spurious association in practice. We propose VISPUR, a visual analytic system that provides a causal analysis framework and a human-centric workflow for tackling spurious associations. These include a CONFOUNDER DASHBOARD, which can automatically identify possible confounding factors, and a SUBGROUP VIEWER, which allows for the visualization and comparison of diverse subgroup patterns that likely or potentially result in a misinterpretation of causality. Additionally, we propose a REASONING STORYBOARD, which uses a flow-based approach to illustrate paradoxical phenomena, as well as an interactive DECISION DIAGNOSIS panel that helps ensure accountable decision-making. Through an expert interview and a controlled user experiment, our qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate that the proposed "de-paradox" workflow and the designed visual analytic system are effective in helping human users to identify and understand spurious associations, as well as to make accountable causal decisions.

Yongsu Ahn, Muheng Yan, Yu-Ru Lin et al.

With the rise of AI and data mining techniques, group profiling and group-level analysis have been increasingly used in many domains including policy making and direct marketing. In some cases, the statistics extracted from data may provide insights to a group's shared characteristics; in others, the group-level analysis can lead to problems including stereotyping and systematic oppression. How can analytic tools facilitate a more conscientious process in group analysis? In this work, we identify a set of accountable group analytics design guidelines to explicate the needs for group differentiation and preventing overgeneralization of a group. Following the design guidelines, we develop TribalGram, a visual analytic suite that leverages interpretable machine learning algorithms and visualization to offer inference assessment, model explanation, data corroboration, and sense-making. Through the interviews with domain experts, we showcase how our design and tools can bring a richer understanding of "groups" mined from the data.

Rr. Nefriana, Muheng Yan, Ahmad Diab et al.

This short paper explores trends in extremist Facebook data from July 2023 to June 2024. We examined engagement, sentiment, and topics within Facebook groups categorized as anti-Israel/Semitic, anti-Palestine/Muslim, and anti-both, mapping these trends against five major events related to the recent Israel-Hamas conflict. Our findings support the hypothesis that shifts in trends correspond with these key events, showing varying patterns across different group categories. We observed decreased activity proportion in anti-both groups and increased activity proportion in the two one-sided hate groups at the conflict's onset. This pattern reversed after the Israeli troop withdrawal from Khan Yunis, Gaza. During the conflict, negative content proportion surged, and neutral content proportion fell in all the three group categories. Anti-Palestine/Muslim groups' discourses shifted from religious to social media activism and political/protest around the time the war began, while anti-Israel/Semitic groups moved from political/protest to religious topics a couple of weeks before the war.

Michelle Star, Andrew Aquilina, Yu-Ru Lin

When users seek social support from chatbots, they disclose their situation gradually, yet most evaluations of supportive LLMs rely on single-turn, fully specified prompts. We introduce a multi-turn simulation framework that closes this gap. Support-seeking narratives from five Reddit communities are decomposed into ordered fragments and revealed turn by turn to a language model. Each response is coded with the Social Support Behavior Code (SSBC), an established multi-label taxonomy that captures the composition of support, rather than a single quality score. To ask whether support choices track the model's own construal of user distress, we use linear probes on hidden representations to estimate this internal signal without altering the generation context. Across two mid-scale models (Llama-3.1-8B, OLMo-3-7B) and more than 6,200 turns, support composition shifts systematically with estimated distress: teaching declines as estimated distress rises, a finding that replicates across architectures, while increases in affective and esteem-oriented strategies (such as validation) are suggestive but model-specific and rest on noisier annotations. Community context independently shapes behavior, tracking topic and discourse norms rather than demographic categories. These trajectory-level dynamics, invisible to single-turn evaluation, motivate multi-turn auditing frameworks for socially sensitive applications.

Yongsu Ahn, Muheng Yan, Yu-Ru Lin et al.

The escalating food insecurity in Africa, caused by factors such as war, climate change, and poverty, demonstrates the critical need for advanced early warning systems. Traditional methodologies, relying on expert-curated data encompassing climate, geography, and social disturbances, often fall short due to data limitations, hindering comprehensive analysis and potential discovery of new predictive factors. To address this, this paper introduces "HungerGist", a multi-task deep learning model utilizing news texts and NLP techniques. Using a corpus of over 53,000 news articles from nine African countries over four years, we demonstrate that our model, trained solely on news data, outperforms the baseline method trained on both traditional risk factors and human-curated keywords. In addition, our method has the ability to detect critical texts that contain interpretable signals known as "gists." Moreover, our examination of these gists indicates that this approach has the potential to reveal latent factors that would otherwise remain concealed in unstructured texts.

Yongsu Ahn, Quinn K Wolter, Jonilyn Dick et al.

Recommender systems have become integral to digital experiences, shaping user interactions and preferences across various platforms. Despite their widespread use, these systems often suffer from algorithmic biases that can lead to unfair and unsatisfactory user experiences. This study introduces an interactive tool designed to help users comprehend and explore the impacts of algorithmic harms in recommender systems. By leveraging visualizations, counterfactual explanations, and interactive modules, the tool allows users to investigate how biases such as miscalibration, stereotypes, and filter bubbles affect their recommendations. Informed by in-depth user interviews, this tool benefits both general users and researchers by increasing transparency and offering personalized impact assessments, ultimately fostering a better understanding of algorithmic biases and contributing to more equitable recommendation outcomes. This work provides valuable insights for future research and practical applications in mitigating bias and enhancing fairness in machine learning algorithms.

Ahana Biswas, Yu-Ru Lin

While existing works have emphasized how elites shape mass opinion, we ask whether the reverse also holds: do audience reactions on social media actively shape elite behavior? We examine this question through the lens of cross-partisan interactions (CPIs), which can either foster deliberation or deepen polarization. Using a dataset of over 1.1 million cross-party retweets, replies, and mentions between U.S. state legislators and their audiences on Twitter/X (2020-2021), we first establish baseline patterns of engagement: Democrats gain modest engagement in replies and mentions, while Republicans often face penalties in direct cross-party interactions. Building on this, we show that audience engagement produces a feedback loop that conditions future elite behavior. Following highly visible CPIs, legislators are not only more likely to engage again in cross-talk, but also shift their rhetorical strategies. Engagement consistently promotes causal reasoning, subjective language, and positive-emotion framing in subsequent CPIs. These findings suggest a positive association between audience engagement and constructive cross-party discourse among elites, challenging overly simplified interpretations in the literature that emphasize social media as a primary driver of rising or falling polarization.

Ahmad Diab, Rr. Nefriana, Yu-Ru Lin

Online discussions frequently involve conspiracy theories, which can contribute to the proliferation of belief in them. However, not all discussions surrounding conspiracy theories promote them, as some are intended to debunk them. Existing research has relied on simple proxies or focused on a constrained set of signals to identify conspiracy theories, which limits our understanding of conspiratorial discussions across different topics and online communities. This work establishes a general scheme for classifying discussions related to conspiracy theories based on authors' perspectives on the conspiracy belief, which can be expressed explicitly through narrative elements, such as the agent, action, or objective, or implicitly through references to known theories, such as chemtrails or the New World Order. We leverage human-labeled ground truth to train a BERT-based model for classifying online CTs, which we then compared to the Generative Pre-trained Transformer machine (GPT) for detecting online conspiratorial content. Despite GPT's known strengths in its expressiveness and contextual understanding, our study revealed significant flaws in its logical reasoning, while also demonstrating comparable strengths from our classifiers. We present the first large-scale classification study using posts from the most active conspiracy-related Reddit forums and find that only one-third of the posts are classified as positive. This research sheds light on the potential applications of large language models in tasks demanding nuanced contextual comprehension.

Yongsu Ahn, Yu-Ru Lin

Despite the benefits of personalizing items and information tailored to users' needs, it has been found that recommender systems tend to introduce biases that favor popular items or certain categories of items, and dominant user groups. In this study, we aim to characterize the systematic errors of a recommendation system and how they manifest in various accountability issues, such as stereotypes, biases, and miscalibration. We propose a unified framework that distinguishes the sources of prediction errors into a set of key measures that quantify the various types of system-induced effects, both at the individual and collective levels. Based on our measuring framework, we examine the most widely adopted algorithms in the context of movie recommendation. Our research reveals three important findings: (1) Differences between algorithms: recommendations generated by simpler algorithms tend to be more stereotypical but less biased than those generated by more complex algorithms. (2) Disparate impact on groups and individuals: system-induced biases and stereotypes have a disproportionate effect on atypical users and minority groups (e.g., women and older users). (3) Mitigation opportunity: using structural equation modeling, we identify the interactions between user characteristics (typicality and diversity), system-induced effects, and miscalibration. We further investigate the possibility of mitigating system-induced effects by oversampling underrepresented groups and individuals, which was found to be effective in reducing stereotypes and improving recommendation quality. Our research is the first systematic examination of not only system-induced effects and miscalibration but also the stereotyping issue in recommender systems.

Xian Teng, Yu-Ru Lin

Real-world observational datasets and machine learning have revolutionized data-driven decision-making, yet many models rely on empirical associations that may be misleading due to confounding and subgroup heterogeneity. Simpson's paradox exemplifies this challenge, where aggregated and subgroup-level associations contradict each other, leading to misleading conclusions. Existing methods provide limited support for detecting and interpreting such paradoxical associations, especially for practitioners without deep causal expertise. We introduce De-paradox Tree, an interpretable algorithm designed to uncover hidden subgroup patterns behind paradoxical associations under assumed causal structures involving confounders and effect heterogeneity. It employs novel split criteria and balancing-based procedures to adjust for confounders and homogenize heterogeneous effects through recursive partitioning. Compared to state-of-the-art methods, De-paradox Tree builds simpler, more interpretable trees, selects relevant covariates, and identifies nested opposite effects while ensuring robust estimation of causal effects when causally admissible variables are provided. Our approach addresses the limitations of traditional causal inference and machine learning methods by introducing an interpretable framework that supports non-expert practitioners while explicitly acknowledging causal assumptions and scope limitations, enabling more reliable and informed decision-making in complex observational data environments.

Yuehong Cassandra Tai, Khushi Navin Patni, Nicholas Daniel Hemauer et al.

Despite recent advances in understanding the capabilities and limits of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) models, we are just beginning to understand their capacity to assess and reason about the veracity of content. We evaluate multiple GenAI models across tasks that involve the rating of, and perceived reasoning about, the credibility of information. The information in our experiments comes from content that subnational U.S. politicians post to Facebook. We find that GPT-4o, one of the most used AI models in consumer applications, outperforms other models, but all models exhibit only moderate agreement with human coders. Importantly, even when GenAI models accurately identify low-credibility content, their reasoning relies heavily on linguistic features and ``hard'' criteria, such as the level of detail, source reliability, and language formality, rather than an understanding of veracity. We also assess the effectiveness of summarized versus full content inputs, finding that summarized content holds promise for improving efficiency without sacrificing accuracy. While GenAI has the potential to support human fact-checkers in scaling misinformation detection, our results caution against relying solely on these models.

Yongsu Ahn, Yu-Ru Lin, Malihe Alikhani et al.

Recent XAI studies have investigated what constitutes a \textit{good} explanation in AI-assisted decision-making. Despite the widely accepted human-friendly properties of explanations, such as contrastive and selective, existing studies have yielded inconsistent findings. To address these gaps, our study focuses on the cognitive dimensions of explanation evaluation, by evaluating six explanations with different contrastive strategies and information selectivity and scrutinizing factors behind their valuation process. Our analysis results find that contrastive explanations are not the most preferable or understandable in general; Rather, different contrastive and selective explanations were appreciated to a different extent based on who they are, when, how, and what to explain -- with different level of cognitive load and engagement and sociotechnical contexts. Given these findings, we call for a nuanced view of explanation strategies, with implications for designing AI interfaces to accommodate individual and contextual differences in AI-assisted decision-making.

Mesut Erhan Unal, Adriana Kovashka, Wen-Ting Chung et al.

Social media content routinely incorporates multi-modal design to covey information and shape meanings, and sway interpretations toward desirable implications, but the choices and outcomes of using both texts and visual images have not been sufficiently studied. This work proposes a computational approach to analyze the outcome of persuasive information in multi-modal content, focusing on two aspects, popularity and reliability, in COVID-19-related news articles shared on Twitter. The two aspects are intertwined in the spread of misinformation: for example, an unreliable article that aims to misinform has to attain some popularity. This work has several contributions. First, we propose a multi-modal (image and text) approach to effectively identify popularity and reliability of information sources simultaneously. Second, we identify textual and visual elements that are predictive to information popularity and reliability. Third, by modeling cross-modal relations and similarity, we are able to uncover how unreliable articles construct multi-modal meaning in a distorted, biased fashion. Our work demonstrates how to use multi-modal analysis for understanding influential content and has implications to social media literacy and engagement.

Snehalkumar, S. Gaikwad, Shankar Iyer et al.

Humanitarian challenges, including natural disasters, food insecurity, climate change, racial and gender violence, environmental crises, the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, human rights violations, and forced displacements, disproportionately impact vulnerable communities worldwide. According to UN OCHA, 235 million people will require humanitarian assistance in 2021 . Despite these growing perils, there remains a notable paucity of data science research to scientifically inform equitable public policy decisions for improving the livelihood of at-risk populations. Scattered data science efforts exist to address these challenges, but they remain isolated from practice and prone to algorithmic harms concerning lack of privacy, fairness, interpretability, accountability, transparency, and ethics. Biases in data-driven methods carry the risk of amplifying inequalities in high-stakes policy decisions that impact the livelihood of millions of people. Consequently, proclaimed benefits of data-driven innovations remain inaccessible to policymakers, practitioners, and marginalized communities at the core of humanitarian actions and global development. To help fill this gap, we propose the Data-driven Humanitarian Mapping Research Program, which focuses on developing novel data science methodologies that harness human-machine intelligence for high-stakes public policy and resilience planning. The proceedings of the 1st Data-driven Humanitarian Mapping workshop at the 26th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, August 24th, 2020.

Meiqi Guo, Rebecca Hwa, Yu-Ru Lin et al.

We investigate the impact of political ideology biases in training data. Through a set of comparison studies, we examine the propagation of biases in several widely-used NLP models and its effect on the overall retrieval accuracy. Our work highlights the susceptibility of large, complex models to propagating the biases from human-selected input, which may lead to a deterioration of retrieval accuracy, and the importance of controlling for these biases. Finally, as a way to mitigate the bias, we propose to learn a text representation that is invariant to political ideology while still judging topic relevance.

Yongsu Ahn, Yu-Ru Lin

Data-driven decision making related to individuals has become increasingly pervasive, but the issue concerning the potential discrimination has been raised by recent studies. In response, researchers have made efforts to propose and implement fairness measures and algorithms, but those efforts have not been translated to the real-world practice of data-driven decision making. As such, there is still an urgent need to create a viable tool to facilitate fair decision making. We propose FairSight, a visual analytic system to address this need; it is designed to achieve different notions of fairness in ranking decisions through identifying the required actions -- understanding, measuring, diagnosing and mitigating biases -- that together lead to fairer decision making. Through a case study and user study, we demonstrate that the proposed visual analytic and diagnostic modules in the system are effective in understanding the fairness-aware decision pipeline and obtaining more fair outcomes.

Ali Mert Ertugrul, Yu-Ru Lin, Tugba Taskaya-Temizel

Opioid overdose is a growing public health crisis in the United States. This crisis, recognized as "opioid epidemic," has widespread societal consequences including the degradation of health, and the increase in crime rates and family problems. To improve the overdose surveillance and to identify the areas in need of prevention effort, in this work, we focus on forecasting opioid overdose using real-time crime dynamics. Previous work identified various types of links between opioid use and criminal activities, such as financial motives and common causes. Motivated by these observations, we propose a novel spatio-temporal predictive model for opioid overdose forecasting by leveraging the spatio-temporal patterns of crime incidents. Our proposed model incorporates multi-head attentional networks to learn different representation subspaces of features. Such deep learning architecture, called "community-attentive" networks, allows the prediction of a given location to be optimized by a mixture of groups (i.e., communities) of regions. In addition, our proposed model allows for interpreting what features, from what communities, have more contributions to predicting local incidents as well as how these communities are captured through forecasting. Our results on two real-world overdose datasets indicate that our model achieves superior forecasting performance and provides meaningful interpretations in terms of spatio-temporal relationships between the dynamics of crime and that of opioid overdose.