Researcher profile

Jane Dwivedi-Yu

Jane Dwivedi-Yu contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

"That's so cute!": The CARE Dataset for Affective Response Detection

Social media plays an increasing role in our communication with friends and family, and our consumption of information and entertainment. Hence, to design effective ranking functions for posts on social media, it would be useful to predict the affective response to a post (e.g., whether the user is likely to be humored, inspired, angered, informed). Similar to work on emotion recognition (which focuses on the affect of the publisher of the post), the traditional approach to recognizing affective response would involve an expensive investment in human annotation of training data. We introduce CARE$_{db}$, a dataset of 230k social media posts annotated according to 7 affective responses using the Common Affective Response Expression (CARE) method. The CARE method is a means of leveraging the signal that is present in comments that are posted in response to a post, providing high-precision evidence about the affective response of the readers to the post without human annotation. Unlike human annotation, the annotation process we describe here can be iterated upon to expand the coverage of the method, particularly for new affective responses. We present experiments that demonstrate that the CARE annotations compare favorably with crowd-sourced annotations. Finally, we use CARE$_{db}$ to train competitive BERT-based models for predicting affective response as well as emotion detection, demonstrating the utility of the dataset for related tasks.

preprint2022arXiv

Affective Signals in a Social Media Recommender System

People come to social media to satisfy a variety of needs, such as being informed, entertained and inspired, or connected to their friends and community. Hence, to design a ranking function that gives useful and personalized post recommendations, it would be helpful to be able to predict the affective response a user may have to a post (e.g., entertained, informed, angered). This paper describes the challenges and solutions we developed to apply Affective Computing to social media recommendation systems. We address several types of challenges. First, we devise a taxonomy of affects that was small (for practical purposes) yet covers the important nuances needed for the application. Second, to collect training data for our models, we balance between signals that are already available to us (namely, different types of user engagement) and data we collected through a carefully crafted human annotation effort on 800k posts. We demonstrate that affective response information learned from this dataset improves a module in the recommendation system by more than 8%. Online experimentation also demonstrates statistically significant decreases in surfaced violating content and increases in surfaced content that users find valuable.

preprint2022arXiv

Improving Wikipedia Verifiability with AI

Verifiability is a core content policy of Wikipedia: claims that are likely to be challenged need to be backed by citations. There are millions of articles available online and thousands of new articles are released each month. For this reason, finding relevant sources is a difficult task: many claims do not have any references that support them. Furthermore, even existing citations might not support a given claim or become obsolete once the original source is updated or deleted. Hence, maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia references is an important challenge and there is a pressing need for better tools to assist humans in this effort. Here, we show that the process of improving references can be tackled with the help of artificial intelligence (AI). We develop a neural network based system, called Side, to identify Wikipedia citations that are unlikely to support their claims, and subsequently recommend better ones from the web. We train this model on existing Wikipedia references, therefore learning from the contributions and combined wisdom of thousands of Wikipedia editors. Using crowd-sourcing, we observe that for the top 10% most likely citations to be tagged as unverifiable by our system, humans prefer our system's suggested alternatives compared to the originally cited reference 70% of the time. To validate the applicability of our system, we built a demo to engage with the English-speaking Wikipedia community and find that Side's first citation recommendation collects over 60% more preferences than existing Wikipedia citations for the same top 10% most likely unverifiable claims according to Side. Our results indicate that an AI-based system could be used, in tandem with humans, to improve the verifiability of Wikipedia. More generally, we hope that our work can be used to assist fact checking efforts and increase the general trustworthiness of information online.

preprint2022arXiv

PEER: A Collaborative Language Model

Textual content is often the output of a collaborative writing process: We start with an initial draft, ask for suggestions, and repeatedly make changes. Agnostic of this process, today's language models are trained to generate only the final result. As a consequence, they lack several abilities crucial for collaborative writing: They are unable to update existing texts, difficult to control and incapable of verbally planning or explaining their actions. To address these shortcomings, we introduce PEER, a collaborative language model that is trained to imitate the entire writing process itself: PEER can write drafts, add suggestions, propose edits and provide explanations for its actions. Crucially, we train multiple instances of PEER able to infill various parts of the writing process, enabling the use of self-training techniques for increasing the quality, amount and diversity of training data. This unlocks PEER's full potential by making it applicable in domains for which no edit histories are available and improving its ability to follow instructions, to write useful comments, and to explain its actions. We show that PEER achieves strong performance across various domains and editing tasks.