Ranking models are typically designed to optimize some measure of immediate utility to the users. As a result, they have been unable to anticipate an increasing number of undesirable long-term consequences of their proposed rankings, from fueling the spread of misinformation and increasing polarization to degrading social discourse. Can we design ranking models that anticipate the consequences of their proposed rankings and are able to avoid the undesirable ones? In this paper, we first introduce a joint representation of rankings and user dynamics using Markov decision processes. Then, we show that this representation greatly simplifies the construction of consequential ranking models that trade off theimmediate utility and the long-term welfare. In particular, we can obtain optimal consequential rankings by applying weighted sampling on the rankings provided by models that maximize measures of immediate utility. However, in practice, such a strategy may be inefficient and impractical, specially in high dimensional scenarios. To overcome this, we introduce an efficient gradient-based algorithm to learn parameterized consequential ranking models that effectively approximate optimal ones. We illustrate our methodology using synthetic and real data gathered from Reddit and show that our consequential rankings may mitigate the spread of misinformation and improve the civility of online discussions.

Online social networking sites are experimenting with the following crowd-powered procedure to reduce the spread of fake news and misinformation: whenever a user is exposed to a story through her feed, she can flag the story as misinformation and, if the story receives enough flags, it is sent to a trusted third party for fact checking. If this party identifies the story as misinformation, it is marked as disputed. However, given the uncertain number of exposures, the high cost of fact checking, and the trade-off between flags and exposures, the above mentioned procedure requires careful reasoning and smart algorithms which, to the best of our knowledge, do not exist to date. In this paper, we first introduce a flexible representation of the above procedure using the framework of marked temporal point processes. Then, we develop a scalable online algorithm, CURB, to select which stories to send for fact checking and when to do so to efficiently reduce the spread of misinformation with provable guarantees. In doing so, we need to solve a novel stochastic optimal control problem for stochastic differential equations with jumps, which is of independent interest. Experiments on two real-world datasets gathered from Twitter and Weibo show that our algorithm may be able to effectively reduce the spread of fake news and misinformation.

Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) is a top-tier annual conference in machine learning. The 2016 edition of the conference comprised more than 2,400 paper submissions, 3,000 reviewers, and 8,000 attendees. This represents a growth of nearly 40% in terms of submissions, 96% in terms of reviewers, and over 100% in terms of attendees as compared to the previous year. The massive scale as well as rapid growth of the conference calls for a thorough quality assessment of the peer-review process and novel means of improvement. In this paper, we analyze several aspects of the data collected during the review process, including an experiment investigating the efficacy of collecting ordinal rankings from reviewers. We make a number of key observations, provide suggestions that may be useful for subsequent conferences, and discuss open problems towards the goal of improving peer review.

Online knowledge repositories typically rely on their users or dedicated editors to evaluate the reliability of their contents. These explicit feedback mechanisms can be viewed as noisy measurements of both information reliability and information source trustworthiness. Can we leverage these noisy measurements, often biased, to distill a robust, unbiased and interpretable measure of both notions?