Mental health concerns, such as depression, pose significant challenges for support systems in effectively identifying affected individuals. On the other hand, people suffering from depression often find it easier to discuss on social media rather than in face-to-face interactions. Additionally, the development of distressing conditions typically arises from a multitude of factors accumulated over time rather than a singular event. To gain a fine-grained understanding of these facets, in this work, we perform a longitudinal analysis of the tweeting behaviour of Indian users who post content related to self-harm. We categorise users based on their posting frequency and examine various aspects including their social network, bio descriptions, tweeting preferences, temporal variations and cognitive indicators. By elucidating these nuances, we aim to contribute insights that could aid in the early detection of mental health issues and prompt timely intervention from support networks.

Understanding how exposure to news on social media impacts public discourse and exacerbates political polarization is a significant endeavor in both computer and social sciences. Unfortunately, progress in this area is hampered by limited access to data due to the closed nature of social media platforms. Consequently, prior studies have been constrained to considering only fragments of users' news exposure and reactions. To overcome this obstacle, we present an innovative measurement approach centered on donating personal data for scientific purposes, facilitated through a privacy-preserving tool that captures users' interactions with news on Facebook. This approach offers a nuanced perspective on users' news exposure and consumption, encompassing different types of news exposure: selective, incidental, algorithmic, and targeted, driven by the diverse underlying mechanisms governing news appearance on users' feeds. Our analysis of data from 472 participants based in the U.S. reveals several interesting findings. For instance, users are more prone to encountering misinformation because of their active selection of low-quality news sources rather than being exposed solely due to friends or platform algorithms. Furthermore, our study uncovers that users are open to engaging with news sources with opposite political ideology as long as these interactions are not visible to their immediate social circles. Overall, our study showcases the viability of data donation as a means to provide clarity to longstanding questions in this field, offering new perspectives on the intricate dynamics of social media news consumption and its effects.

Summarization of textual content has many applications, ranging from summarizing long documents to recent efforts towards summarizing user generated text (e.g., tweets, Facebook or Reddit posts). Traditionally, the focus of summarization has been to generate summaries which can best satisfy the readers. In this work, we look at summarization of user-generated content as a two-sided problem where satisfaction of both readers and authors is crucial. Through three surveys, we show that for user-generated content, traditional evaluation approach of measuring similarity between reference summaries and algorithmic summaries cannot capture author satisfaction. We propose an author satisfaction-based evaluation metric CROSSEM which, we show empirically, can potentially complement the current evaluation paradigm. We further propose the idea of inequality in satisfaction, to account for individual fairness amongst readers and authors. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt towards developing a fair summary evaluation framework for user generated content, and is likely to spawn lot of future research in this space.

Social commerce platforms are emerging businesses where producers sell products through re-sellers who advertise the products to other customers in their social network. Due to the increasing popularity of this business model, thousands of small producers and re-sellers are starting to depend on these platforms for their livelihood; thus, it is important to provide fair earning opportunities to them. The enormous product space in such platforms prohibits manual search, and motivates the need for recommendation algorithms to effectively allocate product exposure and, consequently, earning opportunities. In this work, we focus on the fairness of such allocations in social commerce platforms and formulate the problem of assigning products to re-sellers as a fair division problem with indivisible items under two-sided cardinality constraints, wherein each product must be given to at least a certain number of re-sellers and each re-seller must get a certain number of products.

Influence maximization has found applications in a wide range of real-world problems, for instance, viral marketing of products in an online social network, and information propagation of valuable information such as job vacancy advertisements and health-related information. While existing algorithmic techniques usually aim at maximizing the total number of people influenced, the population often comprises several socially salient groups, e.g., based on gender or race. As a result, these techniques could lead to disparity across different groups in receiving important information. Furthermore, in many of these applications, the spread of influence is time-critical, i.e., it is only beneficial to be influenced before a time deadline. As we show in this paper, the time-criticality of the information could further exacerbate the disparity of influence across groups. This disparity, introduced by algorithms aimed at maximizing total influence, could have far-reaching consequences, impacting people's prosperity and putting minority groups at a big disadvantage. In this work, we propose a notion of group fairness in time-critical influence maximization. We introduce surrogate objective functions to solve the influence maximization problem under fairness considerations. By exploiting the submodularity structure of our objectives, we provide computationally efficient algorithms with guarantees that are effective in enforcing fairness during the propagation process. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through synthetic and real-world experiments.

Influence maximization has found applications in a wide range of real-world problems, for instance, viral marketing of products in an online social network, and propagation of valuable information such as job vacancy advertisements. While existing algorithmic techniques usually aim at maximizing the total number of people influenced, the population often comprises several socially salient groups, e.g., based on gender or race. As a result, these techniques could lead to disparity across different groups in receiving important information. Furthermore, in many applications, the spread of influence is time-critical, i.e., it is only beneficial to be influenced before a deadline. As we show in this paper, such time-criticality of information could further exacerbate the disparity of influence across groups. This dis-parity could have far-reaching consequences, impacting people's prosperity and putting minority groups at a big disadvantage. In this work, we propose a notion of group fairness in time-critical influence maximization. We introduce surrogate objective functions to solve the influence maximization problem under fair-ness considerations. By exploiting the submodularity structure of our objectives, we provide computationally efficient algorithms with guarantees that are effective in enforcing fairness during the propagation process. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate the efficacy of our proposal.

In traditional (desktop) e-commerce search, a customer issues a specific query and the system returns a ranked list of products in order of relevance to the query. An increasingly popular alternative in e-commerce search is to issue a voice-query to a smart speaker (e.g., Amazon Echo) powered by a voice assistant (VA, e.g., Alexa). In this situation, the VA usually spells out the details of only one product, an explanation citing the reason for its selection, and a default action of adding the product to the customer’s cart. This reduced autonomy of the customer in the choice of a product during voice-search makes it necessary for a VA to be far more responsible and trustworthy in its explanation and default action.

Recently, almost all conferences have moved to virtual mode due to the pandemic-induced restrictions on travel and social gathering. Contrary to in-person conferences, virtual conferences face the challenge of efficiently scheduling talks, accounting for the availability of participants from different timezones and their interests in attending different talks. A natural objective for conference organizers is to maximize efficiency, e.g., total expected audience participation across all talks. However, we show that optimizing for efficiency alone can result in an unfair virtual conference schedule, where individual utilities for participants and speakers can be highly unequal. To address this, we formally define fairness notions for participants and speakers, and derive suitable objectives to account for them. As the efficiency and fairness objectives can be in conflict with each other, we propose a joint optimization framework that allows conference organizers to design schedules that balance (i.e., allow trade-offs) among efficiency, participant fairness and speaker fairness objectives. While the optimization problem can be solved using integer programming to schedule smaller conferences, we provide two scalable techniques to cater to bigger conferences. Extensive evaluations over multiple real-world datasets show the efficacy and flexibility of our proposed approaches.

Many online platforms today (such as Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, LinkedIn, and AirBnB) can be thought of as two-sided markets with producers and customers of goods and services. Traditionally, recommendation services in these platforms have focused on maximizing customer satisfaction by tailoring the results according to the personalized preferences of individual customers. However, our investigation reinforces the fact that such customer-centric design of these services may lead to unfair distribution of exposure to the producers, which may adversely impact their well-being. However, a pure producer-centric design might become unfair to the customers. As more and more people are depending on such platforms to earn a living, it is important to ensure fairness to both producers and customers. In this work, by mapping a fair personalized recommendation problem to a constrained version of the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods, we propose to provide fairness guarantees for both sides. Formally, our proposed FairRec algorithm guarantees Maxi-Min Share of exposure for the producers, and Envy-Free up to One Item fairness for the customers. Extensive evaluations over multiple real-world datasets show the effectiveness of FairRec in ensuring two-sided fairness while incurring a marginal loss in overall recommendation quality. Finally, we present a modification of FairRec (named as FairRecPlus ) that at the cost of additional computation time, improves the recommendation performance for the customers, while maintaining the same fairness guarantees.

Public schools in the United States offer tuition-free primary and secondary education to their students, and are divided into school districts funded by the local and state governments. Although the primary source of school district revenue is public money, several studies have pointed to the inequality in funding across different school districts. In this paper, we focus on the spatial geometry/distribution of such inequality, i.e., how the highly funded and lesser funded school districts are located relative to each other. Due to the major reliance on local property taxes for school funding, we find existing school district boundaries promoting financial segregation, with highly-funded school districts surrounded by lesser-funded districts and vice-versa.

The proliferation of smartphones has led to the increased popularity of location-based search and recommendation systems. Online platforms like Google and Yelp allow location-based search in the form of a nearby feature to query for hotels or restaurants in the vicinity. Moreover, hotel booking platforms like Booking[dot]com, Expedia, or Trivago allow travelers searching for accommodations using either their desired location as a search query or near a particular landmark. Since the popularity of different locations in a city varies, certain locations may get more queries than other locations. Thus, the exposure received by different establishments at these locations may be very different from their intrinsic quality as captured in their ratings.Today, many small businesses (shops, hotels, or restaurants) rely on such online platforms for attracting customers. Thus, receiving less exposure than what is expected can be unfavorable for businesses. It could have a negative impact on their revenue and potentially lead to economic starvation or even shutdown. By gathering and analyzing data from three popular platforms, we observe that many top-rated hotels and restaurants get less exposure vis-a-vis their quality, which could be detrimental for them. Following a meritocratic notion, we define and quantify such exposure disparity due to location-based searches on these platforms. We attribute this exposure disparity mainly to two kinds of biases - Popularity Bias and Position Bias. Our experimental evaluation on multiple datasets reveals that although the platforms are doing well in delivering distance-based results, exposure disparity exists for individual businesses and needs to be reduced for business sustainability.

With the surge in user-generated textual information, there has been a recent increase in the use of summarization algorithms for providing an overview of the extensive content. Traditional metrics for evaluation of these algorithms (e.g. ROUGE scores) rely on matching algorithmic summaries to human-generated ones. However, it has been shown that when the textual contents are heterogeneous, e.g., when they come from different socially salient groups, most existing summarization algorithms represent the social groups very differently compared to their distribution in the original data. To mitigate such adverse impacts, some fairness-preserving summarization algorithms have also been proposed. All of these studies have considered normative notions of fairness from the perspective of writers of the contents, neglecting the readers' perceptions of the underlying fairness notions. To bridge this gap, in this work, we study the interplay between the fairness notions and how readers perceive them in textual summaries. Through our experiments, we show that reader's perception of fairness is often context-sensitive. Moreover, standard ROUGE evaluation metrics are unable to quantify the perceived (un)fairness of the summaries. To this end, we propose a human-in-the-loop metric and an automated graph-based methodology to quantify the perceived bias in textual summaries. We demonstrate their utility by quantifying the (un)fairness of several summaries of heterogeneous socio-political microblog datasets.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it paramount to maintain social distance to limit the viral transmission probability. At the same time, local businesses (e.g., restaurants, cafes, stores, malls) need to operate to ensure their economic sustainability. Considering the wide usage of local recommendation platforms like Google Local and Yelp by customers to choose local businesses, we propose to design local recommendation systems which can help in achieving both safety and sustainability goals. Our investigation of existing local recommendation systems shows that they can lead to overcrowding at some businesses compromising customer safety, and very low footfall at other places threatening their economic sustainability. On the other hand, naive ways of ensuring safety and sustainability can cause significant loss in recommendation utility for the customers. Thus, we formally express the problem as a multi-objective optimization problem and solve by innovatively mapping it to a bipartite matching problem with polynomial time solutions. Extensive experiments over multiple real-world datasets reveal the efficacy of our approach along with the three-way control over sustainability, safety, and utility goals.

We investigate the problem of fair recommendation in the context of two-sided online platforms, comprising customers on one side and producers on the other. Traditionally, recommendation services in these platforms have focused on maximizing customer satisfaction by tailoring the results according to the personalized preferences of individual customers. However, our investigation reveals that such customer-centric design may lead to unfair distribution of exposure among the producers, which may adversely impact their well-being. On the other hand, a producer-centric design might become unfair to the customers. Thus, we consider fairness issues that span both customers and producers. Our approach involves a novel mapping of the fair recommendation problem to a constrained version of the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods. Our proposed FairRec algorithm guarantees at least Maximin Share (MMS) of exposure for most of the producers and Envy-Free up to One Good (EF1) fairness for every customer. Extensive evaluations over multiple real-world datasets show the effectiveness of FairRec in ensuring two-sided fairness while incurring a marginal loss in the overall recommendation quality.

Ride hailing platforms, such as Uber, Lyft, Ola or DiDi, have traditionally focused on the satisfaction of the passengers, or on boosting successful business transactions. However, recent studies provide a multitude of reasons to worry about the drivers in the ride hailing ecosystem. The concerns range from bad working conditions and worker manipulation to discrimination against minorities. With the sharing economy ecosystem growing, more and more drivers financially depend on online platforms and their algorithms to secure a living. It is pertinent to ask what a fair distribution of income on such platforms is and what power and means the platform has in shaping these distributions.

Online donation platforms, such as DonorsChoose, GlobalGiving, or CrowdFunder, enable donors to financially support entities in need. In a typical scenario, after a fundraiser submits a request specifying her need, donors contribute financially to help raise the target amount within a pre-specified timeframe. While the goal of such platforms is to counterbalance societal inequalities, biased donation trends might exacerbate the unfair distribution of resources to those in need. Prior research has looked at the impact of biased data, models, or human behavior on inequality in different socio-technical systems, while largely ignoring the choice architecture, in which the funding decisions are made.

Online news media sites are emerging as the primary source of news for a large number of users. Due to a large number of stories being published in these media sites, users usually rely on news recommendation systems to find important news. In this work, we focus on automatically recommending news stories to all users of such media websites, where the selection is not influenced by a particular user’s news reading habit. When recommending news stories in such non-personalized manner, there are three basic metrics of interest—recency, importance (analogous to relevance in personalized recommendation) and diversity of the recommended news. Ideally, recommender systems should recommend the most important stories soon after they are published. However, the importance of a story only becomes evident as the story ages, thereby creating a tension between recency and importance. A systematic analysis of popular recommendation strategies in use today reveals that they lead to poor trade-offs between recency and importance in practice. So, in this paper, we propose a new recommendation strategy (called Highest Future-Impact ) which attempts to optimize on both the axes. To implement our proposed strategy in practice, we propose two approaches to predict the future-impact of news stories, by using crowd-sourced popularity signals and by observing editorial selection in past news data. Finally, we propose approaches to inculcate diversity in recommended news which can maintain a balanced proportion of news from different news sections. Evaluations over real-world news datasets show that our implementations achieve good performance in recommending news stories.

Traditionally, news media organizations used to publish only a few editions of the printed newspapers, and all subscribers of a particular edition used to receive the same information broadcasted by the media organization. The advent of personalized news recommendations has completely changed this simpler news landscape. Such recommendations effectively produce numerous personalized editions of a single newspaper, consisting of only the stories recommended to a particular reader. Although prior works have considered news coverage of different newspapers, due to the difficulty of knowing what news is recommended to whom, there has been no prior study to look into the coverage of information in different personalized news editions. Moreover, the evolution of the effects of personalization on recommended news stories is also not explored. In this work, we make the first attempt to investigate these issues. By collecting extensive data from New York Times personalized recommendations, we compare the information coverage in different personalized editions and investigate how they evolve over time. We observe that the coverage of news stories recommended to different readers are considerably different, and these differences further change with time. We believe that our work will be an important addition to the growing literature on algorithmic auditing and transparency.

Online news media sites are emerging as the primary source of news for a large number of users. The selection of 'front-page' stories on these media sites usually takes into consideration several crowdsourced popularity metrics, such as number of views or shares by the readers. In this work, we focus on automatically recommending front-page stories in such media websites. When recommending news stories, there are two basic metrics of interest - recency and relevancy. Ideally, recommender systems should recommend the most relevant stories soon after they are published. However, the relevancy of a story only becomes evident as the story ages, thereby creating a tension between recency and relevancy. A systematic analysis of popular recommendation strategies in use today reveals that they lead to poor trade-offs between recency and relevancy in practice. So, in this paper, we propose a new recommendation strategy (called Highest Future-Impact) which attempts to optimize on both the axes. To implement our proposed strategy in practice, we develop an optimization framework combining the predicted future-impact of the stories with the uncertainties in the predictions. Evaluations over three real-world news datasets show that our implementation achieves good performance trade-offs between recency and relevancy.

Most of the online news media outlets rely heavily on the revenues generated from the clicks made by their readers, and due to the presence of numerous such outlets, they need to compete with each other for reader attention. To attract the readers to click on an article and subsequently visit the media site, the outlets often come up with catchy headlines accompanying the article links, which lure the readers to click on the link. Such headlines are known as Clickbaits. While these baits may trick the readers into clicking, in the long-run, clickbaits usually don't live up to the expectation of the readers, and leave them disappointed. In this work, we attempt to automatically detect clickbaits and then build a browser extension which warns the readers of different media sites about the possibility of being baited by such headlines. The extension also offers each reader an option to block clickbaits she doesn't want to see. Then, using such reader choices, the extension automatically blocks similar clickbaits during her future visits. We run extensive offline and online experiments across multiple media sites and find that the proposed clickbait detection and the personalized blocking approaches perform very well achieving 93% accuracy in detecting and 89% accuracy in blocking clickbaits.

Citation analysis is a popular area of research, which has been usually used to rank the authors and the publication venues of research papers. With huge number of publications every year, it has become difficult for the users to find relevant publication materials. One simple solution to this problem is to detect communities from the citation network and recommend papers based on the common membership in communities. But, in today's research scenario, many researchers' fields of interest spread into multiple research directions resulting in an increasing number of interdisciplinary publications. Therefore, it is necessary to detect overlapping communities for relevant recommendation.