Min Kyung Lee

Eric Yang Yu, Zhizhen Qin, Min Kyung Lee et al.

Long-term fairness is an important factor of consideration in designing and deploying learning-based decision systems in high-stake decision-making contexts. Recent work has proposed the use of Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) to formulate decision-making with long-term fairness requirements in dynamically changing environments, and demonstrated major challenges in directly deploying heuristic and rule-based policies that worked well in static environments. We show that policy optimization methods from deep reinforcement learning can be used to find strictly better decision policies that can often achieve both higher overall utility and less violation of the fairness requirements, compared to previously-known strategies. In particular, we propose new methods for imposing fairness requirements in policy optimization by regularizing the advantage evaluation of different actions. Our proposed methods make it easy to impose fairness constraints without reward engineering or sacrificing training efficiency. We perform detailed analyses in three established case studies, including attention allocation in incident monitoring, bank loan approval, and vaccine distribution in population networks.

Houjiang Liu, Anubrata Das, Alexander Boltz et al.

While many Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques have been proposed for fact-checking, both academic research and fact-checking organizations report limited adoption of such NLP work due to poor alignment with fact-checker practices, values, and needs. To address this, we investigate a co-design method, Matchmaking for AI, to enable fact-checkers, designers, and NLP researchers to collaboratively identify what fact-checker needs should be addressed by technology, and to brainstorm ideas for potential solutions. Co-design sessions we conducted with 22 professional fact-checkers yielded a set of 11 design ideas that offer a "north star", integrating fact-checker criteria into novel NLP design concepts. These concepts range from pre-bunking misinformation, efficient and personalized monitoring misinformation, proactively reducing fact-checker potential biases, and collaborative writing fact-check reports. Our work provides new insights into both human-centered fact-checking research and practice and AI co-design research.

Jinhao Duan, Xinyu Zhao, Zhuoxuan Zhang et al.

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) succeed in human-guided conversations such as instruction following and question answering, the potential of LLM-guided conversations-where LLMs direct the discourse and steer the conversation's objectives-remains under-explored. In this study, we first characterize LLM-guided conversation into three fundamental components: (i) Goal Navigation; (ii) Context Management; (iii) Empathetic Engagement, and propose GuideLLM as an installation. We then implement an interviewing environment for the evaluation of LLM-guided conversation. Specifically, various topics are involved in this environment for comprehensive interviewing evaluation, resulting in around 1.4k turns of utterances, 184k tokens, and over 200 events mentioned during the interviewing for each chatbot evaluation. We compare GuideLLM with 6 state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o and Llama-3-70b-Instruct, from the perspective of interviewing quality, and autobiography generation quality. For automatic evaluation, we derive user proxies from multiple autobiographies and employ LLM-as-a-judge to score LLM behaviors. We further conduct a human-involved experiment by employing 45 human participants to chat with GuideLLM and baselines. We then collect human feedback, preferences, and ratings regarding the qualities of conversation and autobiography. Experimental results indicate that GuideLLM significantly outperforms baseline LLMs in automatic evaluation and achieves consistent leading performances in human ratings.

Ruijiang Gao, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Maria De-Arteaga et al.

Human-machine complementarity is important when neither the algorithm nor the human yield dominant performance across all instances in a given domain. Most research on algorithmic decision-making solely centers on the algorithm's performance, while recent work that explores human-machine collaboration has framed the decision-making problems as classification tasks. In this paper, we first propose and then develop a solution for a novel human-machine collaboration problem in a bandit feedback setting. Our solution aims to exploit the human-machine complementarity to maximize decision rewards. We then extend our approach to settings with multiple human decision makers. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methods using both synthetic and real human responses, and find that our methods outperform both the algorithm and the human when they each make decisions on their own. We also show how personalized routing in the presence of multiple human decision-makers can further improve the human-machine team performance.