A central feature of many deliberative processes, such as citizens' assemblies and deliberative polls, is the opportunity for participants to engage directly with experts. While participants are typically invited to propose questions for expert panels, only a limited number can be selected due to time constraints. This raises the challenge of how to choose a small set of questions that best represent the interests of all participants. We introduce an auditing framework for measuring the level of representation provided by a slate of questions, based on the social choice concept known as justified representation (JR). We present the first algorithms for auditing JR in the general utility setting, with our most efficient algorithm achieving a runtime of $O(mn\log n)$, where $n$ is the number of participants and $m$ is the number of proposed questions. We apply our auditing methods to historical deliberations, comparing the representativeness of (a) the actual questions posed to the expert panel (chosen by a moderator), (b) participants' questions chosen via integer linear programming, (c) summary questions generated by large language models (LLMs). Our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs in supporting deliberative processes. By integrating our methods into an online deliberation platform that has been used for over hundreds of deliberations across more than 50 countries, we make it easy for practitioners to audit and improve representation in future deliberations.

Online comment sections, such as those on news sites or social media, have the potential to foster informal public deliberation, However, this potential is often undermined by the frequency of toxic or low-quality exchanges that occur in these settings. To combat this, platforms increasingly leverage algorithmic ranking to facilitate higher-quality discussions, e.g., by using civility classifiers or forms of prosocial ranking. Yet, these interventions may also inadvertently reduce the visibility of legitimate viewpoints, undermining another key aspect of deliberation: representation of diverse views. We seek to remedy this problem by introducing guarantees of representation into these methods. In particular, we adopt the notion of *justified representation* (JR) from the social choice literature and incorporate a JR constraint into the comment ranking setting. We find that enforcing JR leads to greater inclusion of diverse viewpoints while still being compatible with optimizing for user engagement or other measures of conversational quality.

Consequential decision-making incentivizes individuals to strategically adapt their behavior to the specifics of the decision rule. While a long line of work has viewed strategic adaptation as gaming and attempted to mitigate its effects, recent work has instead sought to design classifiers that incentivize individuals to improve a desired quality. Key to both accounts is a cost function that dictates which adaptations are rational to undertake. In this work, we develop a causal framework for strategic adaptation. Our causal perspective clearly distinguishes between gaming and improvement and reveals an important obstacle to incentive design. We prove any procedure for designing classifiers that incentivize improvement must inevitably solve a non-trivial causal inference problem. We show a similar result holds for designing cost functions that satisfy the requirements of previous work. With the benefit of hindsight, our results show much of the prior work on strategic classification is causal modeling in disguise.

It is often difficult to hand-specify what the correct reward function is for a task, so researchers have instead aimed to learn reward functions from human behavior or feedback. The types of behavior interpreted as evidence of the reward function have expanded greatly in recent years. We've gone from demonstrations, to comparisons, to reading into the information leaked when the human is pushing the robot away or turning it off. And surely, there is more to come. How will a robot make sense of all these diverse types of behavior? Our key observation is that different types of behavior can be interpreted in a single unifying formalism - as a reward-rational choice that the human is making, often implicitly. We use this formalism to survey prior work through a unifying lens, and discuss its potential use as a recipe for interpreting new sources of information that are yet to be uncovered.

While optimal metareasoning is notoriously intractable, humans are nonetheless able to adaptively allocate their computational resources. A possible approximation that humans may use to do this is to only metareason over a finite set of cognitive systems that perform variable amounts of computation. The highly influential "dual-process" accounts of human cognition, which postulate the coexistence of a slow accurate system with a fast error-prone system, can be seen as a special case of this approximation. This raises two questions: how many cognitive systems should a bounded optimal agent be equipped with and what characteristics should those systems have? We investigate these questions in two settings: a one-shot decision between two alternatives, and planning under uncertainty in a Markov decision process. We find that the optimal number of systems depends on the variability of the environment and the costliness of metareasoning. Consistent with dual-process theories, we also find that when having two systems is optimal, then the first system is fast but error-prone and the second system is slow but accurate.

Intuitively, obedience -- following the order that a human gives -- seems like a good property for a robot to have. But, we humans are not perfect and we may give orders that are not best aligned to our preferences. We show that when a human is not perfectly rational then a robot that tries to infer and act according to the human's underlying preferences can always perform better than a robot that simply follows the human's literal order. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the obedience of a robot and the value it can attain for its owner. We investigate how this tradeoff is impacted by the way the robot infers the human's preferences, showing that some methods err more on the side of obedience than others. We then analyze how performance degrades when the robot has a misspecified model of the features that the human cares about or the level of rationality of the human. Finally, we study how robots can start detecting such model misspecification. Overall, our work suggests that there might be a middle ground in which robots intelligently decide when to obey human orders, but err on the side of obedience.

Autonomous agents optimize the reward function we give them. What they don't know is how hard it is for us to design a reward function that actually captures what we want. When designing the reward, we might think of some specific training scenarios, and make sure that the reward will lead to the right behavior in those scenarios. Inevitably, agents encounter new scenarios (e.g., new types of terrain) where optimizing that same reward may lead to undesired behavior. Our insight is that reward functions are merely observations about what the designer actually wants, and that they should be interpreted in the context in which they were designed. We introduce inverse reward design (IRD) as the problem of inferring the true objective based on the designed reward and the training MDP. We introduce approximate methods for solving IRD problems, and use their solution to plan risk-averse behavior in test MDPs. Empirical results suggest that this approach can help alleviate negative side effects of misspecified reward functions and mitigate reward hacking.

While much computational work on fiction has focused on works in the literary canon, user-created fanfiction presents a unique opportunity to study an ecosystem of literary production and consumption, embodying qualities both of large-scale literary data (55 billion tokens) and also a social network (with over 2 million users).We present several empirical analyses of this data in order to illustrate the range of affordances it presents to research in NLP, computational social science and the digital humanities.We find that fanfiction deprioritizes main protagonists in comparison to canonical texts, has a statistically significant difference in attention allocated to female characters, and offers a framework for developing models of reader reactions to stories.