Understanding citizens’ values in participatory systems is crucial for citizen-centric policy-making. We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices, and AI agents estimate their value preferences by interacting with them. We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants’ choices and motivations, and propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants. We operationalize the philosophical stance that “valuing is deliberatively consequential.” That is, if a participant’s choice is based on a deliberation of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation the participant provides for the choice. Thus, we propose and compare value preferences estimation methods that prioritize the values estimated from motivations over the values estimated from choices alone. Then, we introduce a disambiguation strategy that combines Natural Language Processing and Active Learning to address the detected inconsistencies between choices and motivations. We evaluate the proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and motivations improves the estimation of an individual’s value preferences. The disambiguation strategy does not show substantial improvements when compared to similar baselines—however, we discuss how the novelty of the approach can open new research avenues and propose improvements to address the current limitations.

Active Learning (AL) addresses the high costs of collecting human annotations by strategically annotating the most informative samples.However, for subjective NLP tasks, incorporating a wide range of perspectives in the annotation process is crucial to capture the variability in human judgments.We introduce Annotator-Centric Active Learning (ACAL), which incorporates an annotator selection strategy following data sampling.Our objective is two-fold:(1) to efficiently approximate the full diversity of human judgments, and (2) to assess model performance using annotator-centric metrics, which value minority and majority perspectives equally.We experiment with multiple annotator selection strategies across seven subjective NLP tasks, employing both traditional and novel, human-centered evaluation metrics.Our findings indicate that ACAL improves data efficiency and excels in annotator-centric performance evaluations.However, its success depends on the availability of a sufficiently large and diverse pool of annotators to sample from.

Large-scale survey tools enable the collection of citizen feedback in opinion corpora. Extracting the key arguments from a large and noisy set of opinions helps in understanding the opinions quickly and accurately. Fully automated methods can extract arguments but (1) require large labeled datasets that induce large annotation costs and (2) work well for known viewpoints, but not for novel points of view. We propose HyEnA, a hybrid (human + AI) method for extracting arguments from opinionated texts, combining the speed of automated processing with the understanding and reasoning capabilities of humans. We evaluate HyEnA on three citizen feedback corpora. We find that, on the one hand, HyEnA achieves higher coverage and precision than a state-of-the-art automated method when compared to a common set of diverse opinions, justifying the need for human insight. On the other hand, HyEnA requires less human effort and does not compromise quality compared to (fully manual) expert analysis, demonstrating the benefit of combining human and artificial intelligence.

We adopt an emerging and prominent vision of human-centred Artificial Intelligence that requires building trustworthy intelligent systems. Such systems should be capable of dealing with the challenges of an interconnected, globalised world by handling plurality and by abiding by human values. Within this vision, pluralistic value alignment is a core problem for AI– that is, the challenge of creating AI systems that align with a set of diverse individual value systems. So far, most literature on value alignment has considered alignment to a single value system. To address this research gap, we propose a novel method for estimating and aggregating multiple individual value systems. We rely on recent results in the social choice literature and formalise the value system aggregation problem as an optimisation problem. We then cast this problem as an ℓp-regression problem. Doing so provides a principled and general theoretical framework to model and solve the aggregation problem. Our aggregation method allows us to consider a range of ethical principles, from utilitarian (maximum utility) to egalitarian (maximum fairness). We illustrate the aggregation of value systems by considering real-world data from two case studies: the Participatory Value Evaluation process and the European Values Study. Our experimental evaluation shows how different consensus value systems can be obtained depending on the ethical principle of choice, leading to practical insights for a decision-maker on how to perform value system aggregation.

Enrico Liscio, Oscar Araque, Lorenzo Gatti, Ionut Constantinescu, Catholijn Jonker, Kyriaki Kalimeri, Pradeep Kumar Murukannaiah. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023.

The pursuit of values drives human behavior and promotes cooperation. Existing research is focused on general values (e.g., Schwartz) that transcend contexts. However, context-specific values are necessary to (1) understand human decisions, and (2) engineer intelligent agents that can elicit and align with human values. We propose Axies, a hybrid (human and AI) methodology to identify context-specific values. Axies simplifies the abstract task of value identification as a guided value annotation process involving human annotators. Axies exploits the growing availability of value-laden text corpora and Natural Language Processing to assist the annotators in systematically identifying context-specific values. We evaluate Axies in a user study involving 80 human subjects. In our study, six annotators generate value lists for two timely and important contexts: Covid-19 measures and sustainable Energy. We employ two policy experts and 72 crowd workers to evaluate Axies value lists and compare them to a list of general (Schwartz) values. We find that Axies yields values that are (1) more context-specific than general values, (2) more suitable for value annotation than general values, and (3) independent of the people applying the methodology. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10458-022-09550-0.