Recent studies have discussed how users are increasingly using conversational AI systems, powered by LLMs, for information seeking, decision support, and even emotional support. However, these macro-level observations offer limited insight into how the purpose of these interactions shifts over time, how users frame their interactions with the system, and how steering dynamics unfold in these human-AI interactions. To examine these evolving dynamics, we gathered and analyzed a unique dataset InVivoGPT: consisting of 825K ChatGPT interactions, donated by 300 users through their GDPR data rights. Our analyses reveal three key findings. First, participants increasingly turn to ChatGPT for a broader range of purposes, including substantial growth in sensitive domains such as health and mental health. Second, interactions become more socially framed: the system anthropomorphizes itself at rising rates, participants more frequently treat it as a companion, and personal data disclosure becomes both more common and more diverse. Third, conversational steering becomes more prominent, especially after the release of GPT-4o, with conversations where the participants followed a model-initiated suggestion quadrupling over the period of our dataset. Overall, our results show that conversational AI systems are shifting from functional tools to social partners, raising important questions about their design and governance.

Online platforms increasingly offer ''paid'' ad-free subscriptions as an alternative to the traditional ''free'' ad-based model. The transition to ad-free models ostensibly removes advertising as a key justification for data processing under the GDPR. So, normatively, platforms should collect less user data. However, platforms may justify continued data collection as a means to provide an improved, personalized experience. This tension between privacy principles and platform incentives raises a critical underexplored question: do data collection practices vary between ad-free and ad-based subscription models?

Opaque algorithms disseminate and mediate the content that users consume on online social media platforms. This algorithmic mediation serves users with contents of their liking, on the other hand, it may cause several inadvertent risks to society at scale. While some of these risks, e.g., filter bubbles or dissemination of hateful content, are well studied in the community, behavioral addiction, designated by the Digital Services Act (DSA) as a potential systemic risk, has been understudied. In this work, we aim to study if one can effectively diagnose behavioral addiction using digital data traces from social media platforms. Focusing on the TikTok short-format video platform as a case study, we employ a novel mixed methodology of combining survey responses with data donations of behavioral traces. We survey 1590 TikTok users and stratify them into three addiction groups (i.e., less/moderately/highly likely addicted). Then, we obtain data donations from 107 surveyed participants. By analyzing users' data we find that, among others, highly likely addicted users spend more time watching TikTok videos and keep coming back to TikTok throughout the day, indicating a compulsion to use the platform. Finally, by using basic user engagement features, we train classifier models to identify highly likely addicted users with F1 >= 0.55. The performance of the classifier models suggests predicting addictive users solely based on their usage is rather difficult.

In this paper, we focus on the challenging task of reliably estimating factual knowledge that is embedded inside large language models (LLMs). To avoid reliability concerns with prior approaches, we propose to eliminate prompt engineering when probing LLMs for factual knowledge. Our approach, called Zero-Prompt Latent Knowledge Estimator (ZP-LKE), leverages the in-context learning ability of LLMs to communicate both the factual knowledge question as well as the expected answer format. Our knowledge estimator is both conceptually simpler (i.e., doesn't depend on meta-linguistic judgments of LLMs) and easier to apply (i.e., is not LLM-specific), and we demonstrate that it can surface more of the latent knowledge embedded in LLMs. We also investigate how different design choices affect the performance of ZP-LKE. Using the proposed estimator, we perform a large-scale evaluation of the factual knowledge of a variety of open-source LLMs, like OPT, Pythia, Llama(2), Mistral, Gemma, etc. over a large set of relations and facts from the Wikidata knowledge base. We observe differences in the factual knowledge between different model families and models of different sizes, that some relations are consistently better known than others but that models differ in the precise facts they know, and differences in the knowledge of base models and their finetuned counterparts. Code available at: https://github.com/QinyuanWu0710/ZeroPrompt_LKE

In recent years, user feeds on social media platforms have shifted from simple, chronologically ordered content posted by their network connections (i.e., friends) to opaque, algorithmically ordered and curated content. This shift has led to regulations that require platforms to offer end users greater transparency and control over their algorithmic recommendation-based feeds. In response, social media platforms such as TikTok have recently started explaining why specific videos are recommended to end users. However, we still lack a good understanding of how these explanations are generated and whether they offer the desired transparency to end users. In this work, we audit explanations provided on short-format videos on TikTok. We collect a large dataset of short-format videos and explanations provided by TikTok (when available) using automated sockpuppet accounts. Then, we systematically characterize the explanations, focusing on their accuracy and comprehensiveness. For our assessments, we compare the provided explanations with video metadata and the behavior of our sockpuppet accounts. Our analysis shows that some generic (non-personalized) reasons are always included in explanations (e.g., "This video is popular in your country"), while at the same time, we find that a large number of provided explanations are incompatible with the behavior of our sockpuppet accounts; (e.g., an account that made zero comments on the platform, was presented with the explanation "You commented on similar videos" in 34% of all recommended videos.) Overall, our audit of TikTok video explanations highlights the need for more accurate, fine-grained, and useful explanations for the end users. We will make our code and dataset available to assist the research community.

Recommendation algorithms for social media feeds often function as black boxes from the perspective of users. We aim to detect whether social media feed recommendations are personalized to users, and to characterize the factors contributing to personalization in these feeds. We introduce a general framework to examine a set of social media feed recommendations for a user as a timeline. We label items in the timeline as the result of exploration vs. exploitation of the user's interests on the part of the recommendation algorithm and introduce a set of metrics to capture the extent of personalization across user timelines. We apply our framework to a real TikTok dataset and validate our results using a baseline generated from automated TikTok bots, as well as a randomized baseline. We also investigate the extent to which factors such as video viewing duration, liking, and following drive the personalization of content on TikTok. Our results demonstrate that our framework produces intuitive and explainable results, and can be used to audit and understand personalization in social media feeds.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health-related misinformation and harmful content shared online had a significant adverse effect on society. In an attempt to mitigate this adverse effect, mainstream social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok employed soft moderation interventions (i.e., warning labels) on potentially harmful posts. Such interventions aim to inform users about the post's content without removing it, hence easing the public's concerns about censorship and freedom of speech. Despite the recent popularity of these moderation interventions, as a research community, we lack empirical analyses aiming to uncover how these warning labels are used in the wild, particularly during challenging times like the COVID-19 pandemic. In this work, we analyze the use of warning labels on TikTok, focusing on COVID-19 videos. First, we construct a set of 26 COVID-19 related hashtags, and then we collect 41K videos that include those hashtags in their description. Second, we perform a quantitative analysis on the entire dataset to understand the use of warning labels on TikTok. Then, we perform an in-depth qualitative study, using thematic analysis, on 222 COVID-19 related videos to assess the content and the connection between the content and the warning labels. Our analysis shows that TikTok broadly applies warning labels on TikTok videos, likely based on hashtags included in the description (e.g., 99% of the videos that contain #coronavirus have warning labels). More worrying is the addition of COVID-19 warning labels on videos where their actual content is not related to COVID-19 (23% of the cases in a sample of 143 English videos that are not related to COVID-19). Finally, our qualitative analysis on a sample of 222 videos shows that 7.7% of the videos share misinformation/harmful content and do not include warning labels, 37.3% share benign information and include warning labels, and that 35% of the videos that share misinformation/harmful content (and need a warning label) are made for fun. Our study demonstrates the need to develop more accurate and precise soft moderation systems, especially on a platform like TikTok that is extremely popular among people of younger age.

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.

Machine learning algorithms are increasingly used to assist human decision-making. When the goal of machine assistance is to improve the accuracy of human decisions, it might seem appealing to design ML algorithms that complement human knowledge. While neither the algorithm nor the human are perfectly accurate, one could expect that their complementary expertise might lead to improved outcomes. In this study, we demonstrate that in practice decision aids that are not complementary, but make errors similar to human ones may have their own benefits. In a series of human-subject experiments with a total of 901 participants, we study how the similarity of human and machine errors influences human perceptions of and interactions with algorithmic decision aids. We find that (i) people perceive more similar decision aids as more useful, accurate, and predictable, and that (ii) people are more likely to take opposing advice from more similar decision aids, while (iii) decision aids that are less similar to humans have more opportunities to provide opposing advice, resulting in a higher influence on people’s decisions overall.

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.

Reliably predicting potential failure risks of machine learning (ML) systems when deployed with production data is a crucial aspect of trustworthy AI. This paper introduces Risk Advisor, a novel post-hoc meta-learner for estimating failure risks and predictive uncertainties of any already-trained black-box classification model. In addition to providing a risk score, the Risk Advisor decomposes the uncertainty estimates into aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty components, thus giving informative insights into the sources of uncertainty inducing the failures. Consequently, Risk Advisor can distinguish between failures caused by data variability, data shifts and model limitations and advise on mitigation actions (e.g., collecting more data to counter data shift). Extensive experiments on real-world datasets covering a variety of ML failure scenarios show that the Risk Advisor reliably predicts deployment-time failure risks in all the scenarios, and outperforms strong baselines.

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.

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.

People are rated and ranked, towards algorithmic decision making in an increasing number of applications, typically based on machine learning. Research on how to incorporate fairness into such tasks has prevalently pursued the paradigm of group fairness: giving adequate success rates to specifically protected groups. In contrast, the alternative paradigm of individual fairness has received relatively little attention, and this paper advances this less explored direction. The paper introduces a method for probabilistically mapping user records into a low-rank representation that reconciles individual fairness and the utility of classifiers and rankings in downstream applications. Our notion of individual fairness requires that users who are similar in all task-relevant attributes such as job qualification, and disregarding all potentially discriminating attributes such as gender, should have similar outcomes. We demonstrate the versatility of our method by applying it to classification and learning-to-rank tasks on a variety of real-world datasets. Our experiments show substantial improvements over the best prior work for this setting.

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.

As data science and artificial intelligence become ubiquitous, they have an increasing impact on society. While many of these impacts are beneficial, others may not be. So understanding and managing these impacts is required of every responsible data scientist. Nevertheless, most human decision-makers use algorithms for efficiency purposes and not to make a better (i.e., fairer) decisions. Even the task of risk assessment in the criminal justice system enables efficiency instead of (and often at the expense of) fairness. So we need to frame the problem with fairness, and other societal impacts, as primary objectives. In this context, most attention has been paid to the machine learning of a model for a task, such as recognition, prediction, or classification. However, issues arise in all parts of the data eco-system, from data acquisition to data presentation. For example, the majority of the population is not white and male, yet this demographic is over-represented in the training data. It is challenging for a data scientist to satisfactorily discharge this broad responsibility.

The increasing role of recommender systems in many aspects of society makes it essential to consider how such systems may impact social good. Various modifications to recommendation algorithms have been proposed to improve their performance for specific socially relevant measures. However, previous proposals are often not easily adapted to different measures, and they generally require the ability to modify either existing system inputs, the system's algorithm, or the system's outputs. As an alternative, in this paper we introduce the idea of improving the social desirability of recommender system outputs by adding more data to the input, an approach we view as as providing 'antidote' data to the system. We formalize the antidote data problem, and develop optimization-based solutions. We take as our model system the matrix factorization approach to recommendation, and we propose a set of measures to capture the polarization or fairness of recommendations. We then show how to generate antidote data for each measure, pointing out a number of computational efficiencies, and discuss the impact on overall system accuracy. Our experiments show that a modest budget for antidote data can lead to significant improvements in the polarization or fairness of recommendations.

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.

Data brokers such as Acxiom and Experian are in the business of collecting and selling data on people; the data they sell is commonly used to feed marketing as well as political campaigns. Despite the ongoing privacy debate, there is still very limited visibility into data collection by data brokers. Recently, however, online advertising services such as Facebook have begun to partner with data brokers-to add additional targeting features to their platform- providing avenues to gain insight into data broker information.

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.

Users frequently use search systems on the Web as well as online social media to learn about ongoing events and public opinion on personalities. Prior studies have shown that the top-ranked results returned by these search engines can shape user opinion about the topic (e.g., event or person) being searched. In case of polarizing topics like politics, where multiple competing perspectives exist, the political bias in the top search results can play a significant role in shaping public opinion towards (or away from) certain perspectives. Given the considerable impact that search bias can have on the user, we propose a generalizable search bias quantification framework that not only measures the political bias in ranked list output by the search system but also decouples the bias introduced by the different sources—input data and ranking system. We apply our framework to study the political bias in searches related to 2016 US Presidential primaries in Twitter social media search and find that both input data and ranking system matter in determining the final search output bias seen by the users. And finally, we use the framework to compare the relative bias for two popular search systems—Twitter social media search and Google web search—for queries related to politicians and political events. We end by discussing some potential solutions to signal the bias in the search results to make the users more aware of them.

We revisit the notion of individual fairness proposed by Dwork et al. A central challenge in operationalizing their approach is the difficulty in eliciting a human specification of a similarity metric. In this paper, we propose an operationalization of individual fairness that does not rely on a human specification of a distance metric. Instead, we propose novel approaches to elicit and leverage side-information on equally deserving individuals to counter subordination between social groups. We model this knowledge as a fairness graph, and learn a unified Pairwise Fair Representation (PFR) of the data that captures both data-driven similarity between individuals and the pairwise side-information in fairness graph. We elicit fairness judgments from a variety of sources, including human judgments for two real-world datasets on recidivism prediction (COMPAS) and violent neighborhood prediction (Crime & Communities). Our experiments show that the PFR model for operationalizing individual fairness is practically viable.

Discrimination via algorithmic decision making has received considerable attention. Prior work largely focuses on defining conditions for fairness, but does not define satisfactory measures of algorithmic unfairness. In this paper, we focus on the following question: Given two unfair algorithms, how should we determine which of the two is more unfair? Our core idea is to use existing inequality indices from economics to measure how unequally the outcomes of an algorithm benefit different individuals or groups in a population. Our work offers a justified and general framework to compare and contrast the (un)fairness of algorithmic predictors. This unifying approach enables us to quantify unfairness both at the individual and the group level. Further, our work reveals overlooked tradeoffs between different fairness notions: using our proposed measures, the overall individual-level unfairness of an algorithm can be decomposed into a between-group and a within-group component. Earlier methods are typically designed to tackle only between-group un- fairness, which may be justified for legal or other reasons. However, we demonstrate that minimizing exclusively the between-group component may, in fact, increase the within-group, and hence the overall unfairness. We characterize and illustrate the tradeoffs between our measures of (un)fairness and the prediction accuracy.

Rankings of people and items are at the heart of selection-making, match-making, and recommender systems, ranging from employment sites to sharing economy platforms. As ranking positions influence the amount of attention the ranked subjects receive, biases in rankings can lead to unfair distribution of opportunities and resources such as jobs or income. This paper proposes new measures and mechanisms to quantify and mitigate unfairness from a bias inherent to all rankings, namely, the position bias which leads to disproportionately less attention being paid to low-ranked subjects. Our approach differs from recent fair ranking approaches in two important ways. First, existing works measure unfairness at the level of subject groups while our measures capture unfairness at the level of individual subjects, and as such subsume group unfairness. Second, as no single ranking can achieve individual attention fairness, we propose a novel mechanism that achieves amortized fairness, where attention accumulated across a series of rankings is proportional to accumulated relevance. We formulate the challenge of achieving amortized individual fairness subject to constraints on ranking quality as an online optimization problem and show that it can be solved as an integer linear program. Our experimental evaluation reveals that unfair attention distribution in rankings can be substantial, and demonstrates that our method can improve individual fairness while retaining high ranking quality.

As algorithms are increasingly used to make important decisions that affect human lives, ranging from social benefit assignment to predicting risk of criminal recidivism, concerns have been raised about the fairness of algorithmic decision making. Most prior works on algorithmic fairness normatively prescribe how fair decisions ought to be made. In contrast, here, we descriptively survey users for how they perceive and reason about fairness in algorithmic decision making. A key contribution of this work is the framework we propose to understand why people perceive certain features as fair or unfair to be used in algorithms. Our framework identifies eight properties of features, such as relevance, volitionality and reliability, as latent considerations that inform people»s moral judgments about the fairness of feature use in decision-making algorithms. We validate our framework through a series of scenario-based surveys with 576 people. We find that, based on a person»s assessment of the eight latent properties of a feature in our exemplar scenario, we can accurately (> 85%) predict if the person will judge the use of the feature as fair. Our findings have important implications. At a high-level, we show that people»s unfairness concerns are multi-dimensional and argue that future studies need to address unfairness concerns beyond discrimination. At a low-level, we find considerable disagreements in people»s fairness judgments. We identify root causes of the disagreements, and note possible pathways to resolve them.

Search engines in online communities such as Twitter or Facebook not only return matching posts, but also provide links to the profiles of the authors. Thus, when a user appears in the top-k results for a sensitive keyword query, she becomes widely exposed in a sensitive context. The effects of such exposure can result in a serious privacy violation, ranging from embarrassment all the way to becoming a victim of organizational discrimination.

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.

Automated data-driven decision making systems are increasingly being used to assist, or even replace humans in many settings. These systems function by learning from historical decisions, often taken by humans. In order to maximize the utility of these systems (or, classifiers), their training involves minimizing the errors (or, misclassifications) over the given historical data. However, it is quite possible that the optimally trained classifier makes decisions for people belonging to different social groups with different misclassification rates (e.g., misclassification rates for females are higher than for males), thereby placing these groups at an unfair disadvantage. To account for and avoid such unfairness, in this paper, we introduce a new notion of unfairness, disparate mistreatment, which is defined in terms of misclassification rates. We then propose intuitive measures of disparate mistreatment for decision boundary-based classifiers, which can be easily incorporated into their formulation as convex-concave constraints. Experiments on synthetic as well as real world datasets show that our methodology is effective at avoiding disparate mistreatment, often at a small cost in terms of accuracy.

Privacy of Internet users is at stake because they expose personal information in posts created in online communities, in search queries, and other activities. An adversary that monitors a community may identify the users with the most sensitive properties and utilize this knowledge against them (e.g., by adjusting the pricing of goods or targeting ads of sensitive nature). Existing privacy models for structured data are inadequate to capture privacy risks from user posts.

Social media sites are information marketplaces, where users produce and consume a wide variety of information and ideas. In these sites, users typically choose their information sources, which in turn determine what specific information they receive, how much information they receive and how quickly this information is shown to them. In this context, a natural question that arises is how efficient are social media users at selecting their information sources. In this work, we propose a computational framework to quantify users' efficiency at selecting information sources. Our framework is based on the assumption that the goal of users is to acquire a set of unique pieces of information. To quantify user's efficiency, we ask if the user could have acquired the same pieces of information from another set of sources more efficiently. We define three different notions of efficiency -- link, in-flow, and delay -- corresponding to the number of sources the user follows, the amount of (redundant) information she acquires and the delay with which she receives the information. Our definitions of efficiency are general and applicable to any social media system with an underlying in- formation network, in which every user follows others to receive the information they produce.

On most current websites untrustworthy or spammy identities are easily created. Existing proposals to detect untrustworthy identities rely on reputation signals obtained by observing the activities of identities over time within a single site or domain; thus, there is a time lag before which websites cannot easily distinguish attackers and legitimate users. In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of leveraging information about identities that is aggregated across multiple domains to reason about their trustworthiness. Our key insight is that while honest users naturally maintain identities across multiple domains (where they have proven their trustworthiness and have acquired reputation over time), attackers are discouraged by the additional effort and costs to do the same. We propose a flexible framework to transfer trust between domains that can be implemented in today's systems without significant loss of privacy or significant implementation overheads.

Matching the profiles of a user across multiple online social networks brings opportunities for new services and applications as well as new insights on user online behavior, yet it raises serious privacy concerns. Prior literature has showed that it is possible to accurately match profiles, but their evaluation focused only on sampled datasets. In this paper, we study the extent to which we can reliably match profiles in practice, across real-world social networks, by exploiting public attributes, i.e., information users publicly provide about themselves. Today's social networks have hundreds of millions of users, which brings completely new challenges as a reliable matching scheme must identify the correct matching profile out of the millions of possible profiles. We first define a set of properties for profile attributes--Availability, Consistency, non-Impersonability, and Discriminability (ACID)--that are both necessary and sufficient to determine the reliability of a matching scheme. Using these properties, we propose a method to evaluate the accuracy of matching schemes in real practical cases. Our results show that the accuracy in practice is significantly lower than the one reported in prior literature. When considering entire social networks, there is a non-negligible number of profiles that belong to different users but have similar attributes, which leads to many false matches. Our paper sheds light on the limits of matching profiles in the real world and illustrates the correct methodology to evaluate matching schemes in realistic scenarios.

Analysis of content streams gathered from social networking sites such as Twitter has several applications ranging from content search and recommendation, news detection to business analytics. However, processing large amounts of data generated on these sites in real-time poses a difficult challenge. To cope with the data deluge, analytics companies and researchers are increasingly resorting to sampling. In this article, we investigate the crucial question of how to sample content streams generated by users in online social networks . The traditional method is to randomly sample all the data. For example, most studies using Twitter data today rely on the 1% and 10% randomly sampled streams of tweets that are provided by Twitter. In this paper, we analyze a different sampling methodology, one where content is gathered only from a relatively small sample (<1%) of the user population, namely, the expert users . Over the duration of a month, we gathered tweets from over 500,000 Twitter users who are identified as experts on a diverse set of topics, and compared the resulting expert sampled tweets with the 1% randomly sampled tweets provided publicly by Twitter. We compared the sampled datasets along several dimensions, including the popularity, topical diversity, trustworthiness, and timeliness of the information contained within them, and on the sentiment/opinion expressed on specific topics. Our analysis reveals several important differences in data obtained through the different sampling methodologies, which have serious implications for applications such as topical search, trustworthy content recommendations, breaking news detection, and opinion mining.

We propose a novel mechanism to infer topics of interest of individual users in the Twitter social network. We observe that in Twitter, a user generally follows experts on various topics of her interest in order to acquire information on those topics. We use a methodology based on social annotations (proposed earlier by us) to first deduce the topical expertise of popular Twitter users, and then transitively infer the interests of the users who follow them. This methodology is a sharp departure from the traditional techniques of inferring interests of a user from the tweets that she posts or receives. We show that the topics of interest inferred by the proposed methodology are far superior than the topics extracted by state-of-the-art techniques such as using topic models (Labeled LDA) on tweets. Based upon the proposed methodology, we build a system Who Likes What, which can infer the interests of millions of Twitter users. To our knowledge, this is the first system that can infer interests for Twitter users at such scale. Hence, this system would be particularly beneficial in developing personalized recommender services over the Twitter platform.

Several applications today rely upon content streams crowd-sourced from online social networks. Since real-time processing of large amounts of data generated on these sites is difficult, analytics companies and researchers are increasingly resorting to sampling. In this paper, we investigate the crucial question of how to sample the data generated by users in social networks. The traditional method is to randomly sample all the data. We analyze a different sampling methodology, where content is gathered only from a relatively small subset (< 1%) of the user population namely, the expert users. Over the duration of a month, we gathered tweets from over 500,000 Twitter users who are identified as experts on a diverse set of topics, and compared the resulting expert-sampled tweets with the 1% randomly sampled tweets provided publicly by Twitter. We compared the sampled datasets along several dimensions, including the diversity, timeliness, and trustworthiness of the information contained within them, and find important differences between the datasets. Our observations have major implications for applications such as topical search, trustworthy content recommendations, and breaking news detection.

The way in which social conventions emerge in communities has been of interest to social scientists for decades. Here we report on the emergence of a particular social convention on Twitter---the way to indicate a tweet is being reposted and attributing the content to its source. Despite being invented at different times and having different adoption rates, only two variations became widely adopted. In this paper we describe this process in detail, highlighting the factors that come into play in deciding which variation individuals will adopt. Our classification analysis demonstrates that the date of adoption and the number of exposures are particularly important in the adoption process, while personal features (such as the number of followers and join date) and the number of adopter friends have less discriminative power in predicting adoptions. We discuss implications of these findings in the design of future Web applications and services.

Finding topic experts on microblogging sites with millions of users, such as Twitter, is a hard and challenging problem. In this paper, we propose and investigate a new methodology for discovering topic experts in the popular Twitter social network. Our methodology relies on the wisdom of the Twitter crowds -- it leverages Twitter Lists, which are often carefully curated by individual users to include experts on topics that interest them and whose meta-data (List names and descriptions) provides valuable semantic cues to the experts' domain of expertise. We mined List information to build Cognos, a system for finding topic experts in Twitter. Detailed experimental evaluation based on a real-world deployment shows that: (a) Cognos infers a user's expertise more accurately and comprehensively than state-of-the-art systems that rely on the user's bio or tweet content, (b) Cognos scales well due to built-in mechanisms to efficiently update its experts' database with new users, and (c) Despite relying only on a single feature, namely crowdsourced Lists, Cognos yields results comparable to, if not better than, those given by the official Twitter experts search engine for a wide range of queries in user tests. Our study highlights Lists as a potentially valuable source of information for future content or expert search systems in Twitter.

Recently, Twitter has emerged as a popular platform for discovering real-time information on the Web, such as news stories and people's reaction to them. Like the Web, Twitter has become a target for link farming, where users, especially spammers, try to acquire large numbers of follower links in the social network. Acquiring followers not only increases the size of a user's direct audience, but also contributes to the perceived influence of the user, which in turn impacts the ranking of the user's tweets by search engines.

Online social networks are now a popular way for users to connect, express themselves, and share content. Users in today's online social networks often post a profile, consisting of attributes like geographic location, interests, and schools attended. Such profile information is used on the sites as a basis for grouping users, for sharing content, and for suggesting users who may benefit from interaction. However, in practice, not all users provide these attributes.

Online social networking sites like MySpace, Facebook, and Flickr have become a popular way to share and disseminate content. Their massive popularity has led to viral marketing techniques that attempt to spread content, products, and ideas on these sites. However, there is little data publicly available on viral propagation in the real world and few studies have characterized how information spreads over current online social networks.