Search

Each year, selective American colleges sort through tens of thousands of applications to identify a first-year class that displays both academic merit and diversity. In the 2023-2024 admissions cycle, these colleges faced unprecedented challenges. First, the number of applications has been steadily growing. Second, test-optional policies that have remained in place since the COVID-19 pandemic limit access to key information historically predictive of academic success. Most recently, longstanding debates over affirmative action culminated in the Supreme Court banning race-conscious admissions. Colleges have explored machine learning (ML) models to address the issues of scale and missing test scores, often via ranking algorithms intended to focus on 'top' applicants. However, the Court's ruling will force changes to these models, which were able to consider race as a factor in ranking. There is currently a poor understanding of how these mandated changes will shape applicant ranking algorithms, and, by extension, admitted classes. We seek to address this by quantifying the impact of different admission policies on the applications prioritized for review. We show that removing race data from a developed applicant ranking algorithm reduces the diversity of the top-ranked pool without meaningfully increasing the academic merit of that pool. We contextualize this impact by showing that excluding data on applicant race has a greater impact than excluding other potentially informative variables like intended majors. Finally, we measure the impact of policy change on individuals by comparing the arbitrariness in applicant rank attributable to policy change to the arbitrariness attributable to randomness. We find that any given policy has a high degree of arbitrariness and that removing race data from the ranking algorithm increases arbitrariness in outcomes for most applicants., Comment: 25 pages, 8 figures

Most conventional recommendation methods (e.g., matrix factorization) represent user profiles as high-dimensional vectors. Unfortunately, these vectors lack interpretability and steerability, and often perform poorly in cold-start settings. To address these shortcomings, we explore the use of user profiles that are represented as human-readable text. We propose the Language-based Factorization Model (LFM), which is essentially an encoder/decoder model where both the encoder and the decoder are large language models (LLMs). The encoder LLM generates a compact natural-language profile of the user's interests from the user's rating history. The decoder LLM uses this summary profile to complete predictive downstream tasks. We evaluate our LFM approach on the MovieLens dataset, comparing it against matrix factorization and an LLM model that directly predicts from the user's rating history. In cold-start settings, we find that our method can have higher accuracy than matrix factorization. Furthermore, we find that generating a compact and human-readable summary often performs comparably with or better than direct LLM prediction, while enjoying better interpretability and shorter model input length. Our results motivate a number of future research directions and potential improvements., Comment: 8 pages (4 in appendix), 22 tables/figures (16 in appendix). Accepted to LLM-IGS@WSDM2024 workshop, now sharing this slightly updated revision version with workshop

In this work, we establish a baseline potential for how modern model-generated text explanations of movie recommendations may help users, and explore what different components of these text explanations that users like or dislike, especially in contrast to existing human movie reviews. We found that participants gave no significantly different rankings between movies, nor did they give significantly different individual quality scores to reviews of movies that they had never seen before. However, participants did mark reviews as significantly better when they were movies they had seen before. We also explore specific aspects of movie review texts that participants marked as important for each quality. Overall, we establish that modern LLMs are a promising source of recommendation explanations, and we intend on further exploring personalizable text explanations in the future., Comment: 8 pages, 4 tables/figures. Accepted in current form to IntRS@RecSys2023 workshop. Intending on making noticeable in-place revisions on ArXiv for future submission, including potential title change

University admission at many highly selective institutions uses a holistic review process, where all aspects of the application, including protected attributes (e.g., race, gender), grades, essays, and recommendation letters are considered, to compose an excellent and diverse class. In this study, we empirically evaluate how influential protected attributes are for predicting admission decisions using a machine learning (ML) model, and in how far textual information (e.g., personal essay, teacher recommendation) may substitute for the loss of protected attributes in the model. Using data from 14,915 applicants to an undergraduate admission office at a selective U.S. institution in the 2022-2023 cycle, we find that the exclusion of protected attributes from the ML model leads to substantially reduced admission-prediction performance. The inclusion of textual information via both a TF-IDF representation and a Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) model partially restores model performance, but does not appear to provide a full substitute for admitting a similarly diverse class. In particular, while the text helps with gender diversity, the proportion of URM applicants is severely impacted by the exclusion of protected attributes, and the inclusion of new attributes generated from the textual information does not recover this performance loss., Comment: EDI in EdTech R&D (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Educational Technology Research and Development) workshop at AIED Tokyo 2023 Conference

Scientists and science journalists, among others, often need to make sense of a large number of papers and how they compare with each other in scope, focus, findings, or any other important factors. However, with a large corpus of papers, it's cognitively demanding to pairwise compare and contrast them all with each other. Fully automating this review process would be infeasible, because it often requires domain-specific knowledge, as well as understanding what the context and motivations for the review are. While there are existing tools to help with the process of organizing and annotating papers for literature reviews, at the core they still rely on people to serially read through papers and manually make sense of relevant information. We present AVTALER, which combines peoples' unique skills, contextual awareness, and knowledge, together with the strength of automation. Given a set of comparable text excerpts from a paper corpus, it supports users in sensemaking and contrasting paper attributes by interactively aligning text excerpts in a table so that comparable details are presented in a shared column. AVTALER is based on a core alignment algorithm that makes use of modern NLP tools. Furthermore, AVTALER is a mixed-initiative system: users can interactively give the system constraints which are integrated into the alignment construction process., Comment: 13 pages, 12 figures

Navigating education and career paths presents young people with many choices and challenges. Underserved youth are particularly vulnerable to the challenges that can interfere with navigating their paths effectively. At the same time, young people equipped with the knowledge and skills to overcome obstacles are able to succeed and realize the benefits. Opportunities to build the knowledge and skills for navigational success include experiences that provide for 1) learning more about oneself and the environment, 2) using this information to make informed choices and plans, and 3) optimizing resources to help move along education and career paths. The 2017 Beating the Odds Roadtrip was a real-world opportunity for underserved youth to develop and refine some of these skills. [This report was co-produced by Roadtrip Nation.]

Many researchers motivate explainable AI with studies showing that human-AI team performance on decision-making tasks improves when the AI explains its recommendations. However, prior studies observed improvements from explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best team. Can explanations help lead to complementary performance, where team accuracy is higher than either the human or the AI working solo? We conduct mixed-method user studies on three datasets, where an AI with accuracy comparable to humans helps participants solve a task (explaining itself in some conditions). While we observed complementary improvements from AI augmentation, they were not increased by explanations. Rather, explanations increased the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation, regardless of its correctness. Our result poses new challenges for human-centered AI: Can we develop explanatory approaches that encourage appropriate trust in AI, and therefore help generate (or improve) complementary performance?, Comment: CHI'21