Search

With the increased awareness of situations of mental crisis and their societal impact, online services providing emergency support are becoming commonplace in many countries. Computational models, trained on discussions between help-seekers and providers, can support suicide prevention by identifying at-risk individuals. However, the lack of domain-specific models, especially in low-resource languages, poses a significant challenge for the automatic detection of suicide risk. We propose a model that combines pre-trained language models (PLM) with a fixed set of manually crafted (and clinically approved) set of suicidal cues, followed by a two-stage fine-tuning process. Our model achieves 0.91 ROC-AUC and an F2-score of 0.55, significantly outperforming an array of strong baselines even early on in the conversation, which is critical for real-time detection in the field. Moreover, the model performs well across genders and age groups.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can augment and sometimes even replace human cognition. Inspired by efforts to value human agency alongside productivity, we discuss the benefits of solving Citizen Science (CS) tasks with Hybrid Intelligence (HI), a synergetic mixture of human and artificial intelligence. Currently there is no clear framework or methodology on how to create such an effective mixture. Due to the unique participant-centered set of values and the abundance of tasks drawing upon both human common sense and complex 21st century skills, we believe that the field of CS offers an invaluable testbed for the development of HI and human-centered AI of the 21st century, while benefiting CS as well. In order to investigate this potential, we first relate CS to adjacent computational disciplines. Then, we demonstrate that CS projects can be grouped according to their potential for HI-enhancement by examining two key dimensions: the level of digitization and the amount of knowledge or experience required for participation. Finally, we propose a framework for types of human-AI interaction in CS based on established criteria of HI. This "HI lens" provides the CS community with an overview of several ways to utilize the combination of AI and human intelligence in their projects. It also allows the AI community to gain ideas on how developing AI in CS projects can further their own field.

Participatory budgeting is a democratic process for allocating funds to projects based on the votes of members of the community. However, most input methods of voters' preferences prevent the voters from expressing complex relationships among projects, leading to outcomes that do not reflect their preferences well enough. In this paper, we propose an input method that begins to address this challenge, by allowing participants to express substitutes over projects. Then, we extend a known aggregation mechanism from the literature (Rule X) to handle substitute projects. We prove that our extended rule preserves proportionality under natural conditions, and show empirically that it obtains substantially more welfare than the original mechanism on instances with substitutes.

AI systems that model and interact with users can update their models over time to reflect new information and changes in the environment. Although these updates may improve the overall performance of the AI system, they may actually hurt the performance with respect to individual users. Prior work has studied the trade-off between improving the system's accuracy following an update and the compatibility of the updated system with prior user experience. The more the model is forced to be compatible with a prior version, the higher loss in accuracy it will incur. In this paper, we show that by personalizing the loss function to specific users, in some cases it is possible to improve the compatibility-accuracy trade-off with respect to these users (increase the compatibility of the model while sacrificing less accuracy). We present experimental results indicating that this approach provides moderate improvements on average (around 20%) but large improvements for certain users (up to 300%)., Comment: 6 pages, 7 figures

Badges are endemic to online interaction sites, from Question and Answer (Q&A) websites to ride sharing, as systems for rewarding participants for their contributions. This paper studies how badge design affects people's contributions and behavior over time. Past work has shown that badges "steer" people's behavior toward substantially increasing the amount of contributions before obtaining the badge, and immediately decreasing their contributions thereafter, returning to their baseline contribution levels. In contrast, we find that the steering effect depends on the type of user, as modeled by the rate and intensity of the user's contributions. We use these measures to distinguish between different groups of user activity, including users who are not affected by the badge system despite being significant contributors to the site. We provide a predictive model of how users change their activity group over the course of their lifetime in the system. We demonstrate our approach empirically in three different Q\&A sites on Stack Exchange with hundreds of thousands of users, for two types of activities (editing and voting on posts).

Visual programming environments are increasingly part of the curriculum in schools. Their potential for promoting creative thinking of students is an important factor in their adoption. However, there does not exist a standard approach for detecting creativity in students' programming behavior, and analyzing programs manually requires human expertise and is time consuming. This work provides a computational tool for measuring creativity in visual programming that combines theory from the literature with data mining approaches. It adapts the classical dimensions of creative processes to our setting, as well as considering new aspects such as visual elements of the projects. We apply this approach to the Scratch programming environment, measuring the creativity score of hundreds of projects. We show that current metrics of computational thinking in Scratch fail to capture important aspects of creativity, such as the visual artifacts of projects. Interviews conducted with Scratch teachers validate our approach.

The use of large pretrained neural networks to create contextualized word embeddings has drastically improved performance on several natural language processing (NLP) tasks. These computationally expensive models have begun to be applied to domain-specific NLP tasks such as re-hospitalization prediction from clinical notes. This paper demonstrates that using large pretrained models produces excellent results on common learning analytics tasks. Pre-training deep language models using student forum data from a wide array of online courses improves performance beyond the state of the art on three text classification tasks. We also show that a smaller, distilled version of our model produces the best results on two of the three tasks while limiting computational cost. We make both models available to the research community at large., Comment: Accepted for poster presentation at the 10th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK20) Conference

Despite the prevalence of voting systems in the real world there is no consensus among researchers of how people vote strategically, even in simple voting settings. This paper addresses this gap by comparing different approaches that have been used to model strategic voting, including expected utility maximization, heuristic decisionmaking, and bounded rationality models. The models are applied to data collected from hundreds of people in controlled voting experiments, where people vote after observing non-binding poll information. We introduce a new voting model, the Attainability- Utility (AU) heuristic, which weighs the popularity of a candidate according to the poll, with the utility of the candidate to the voter. We argue that the AU model is cognitively plausible, and show that it is able to predict peoples voting behavior significantly better than other models from the literature. It was almost at par with (and sometimes better than) a machine learning algorithm that uses substantially more information. Our results provide new insights into the strategic considerations of voters, that undermine the prevalent assumptions of much theoretical work in social choice.

As e-learning systems become more prevalent, there is a growing need for them to accommodate individual differences between students. This paper addresses the problem of how to personalize educational content to students in order to maximize their learning gains over time. We present a new computational approach to this problem called MAPLE (Multi-Armed Bandits based Personalization for Learning Environments) that combines difficulty ranking with multi-armed bandits. Given a set of target questions MAPLE estimates the expected learning gains for each question and uses an exploration-exploitation strategy to choose the next question to pose to the student. It maintains a personalized ranking over the difficulties of question in the target set which is used in two ways: First, to obtain initial estimates over the learning gains for the set of questions. Second, to update the estimates over time based on the students responses. We show in simulations that MAPLE was able to improve students' learning gains compared to approaches that sequence questions in increasing level of difficulty, or rely on content experts. When implemented in a live e-learning system in the wild, MAPLE showed promising results. This work demonstrates the efficacy of using stochastic approaches to the sequencing problem when augmented with information about question difficulty.

The question of how people vote strategically under uncertainty has attracted much attention in several disciplines. Theoretical decision models have been proposed which vary in their assumptions on the sophistication of the voters and on the information made available to them about others' preferences and their voting behavior. This work focuses on modeling strategic voting behavior under poll information. It proposes a new heuristic for voting behavior that weighs the success of each candidate according to the poll score with the utility of the candidate given the voters' preferences. The model weights can be tuned individually for each voter. We compared this model with other relevant voting models from the literature on data obtained from a recently released large scale study. We show that the new heuristic outperforms all other tested models. The prediction errors of the model can be partly explained due to inconsistent voters that vote for (weakly) dominated candidates.