Bound by the Bounty: Collaboratively Shaping Evaluation Processes for Queer AI Harms

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10223v2
• Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 13:44:39 GMT
• Title: Bound by the Bounty: Collaboratively Shaping Evaluation Processes for Queer AI Harms
• Abstract summary: We ask queer communities for their positions on, and desires from, auditing processes. We organized a participatory workshop to critique and bias bounties from queer perspectives. We conclude by advocating for community ownership of bounties and complementing bounties with participatory processes.
• Score: 14.872177285434999
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Bias evaluation benchmarks and dataset and model documentation have emerged as central processes for assessing the biases and harms of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, these auditing processes have been criticized for their failure to integrate the knowledge of marginalized communities and consider the power dynamics between auditors and the communities. Consequently, modes of bias evaluation have been proposed that engage impacted communities in identifying and assessing the harms of AI systems (e.g., bias bounties). Even so, asking what marginalized communities want from such auditing processes has been neglected. In this paper, we ask queer communities for their positions on, and desires from, auditing processes. To this end, we organized a participatory workshop to critique and redesign bias bounties from queer perspectives. We found that when given space, the scope of feedback from workshop participants goes far beyond what bias bounties afford, with participants questioning the ownership, incentives, and efficacy of bounties. We conclude by advocating for community ownership of bounties and complementing bounties with participatory processes (e.g., co-creation).

Related papers

• Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generation [68.04679314462481]
  We formalize judgment-grounded expansion, a human-AI collaboration mode where a reviewer provides an evaluative claim and the system expands it into review comment candidate(s)<n>We study two practical challenges for judgment-grounded expansion: scalable evaluation and candidate set curation.<n>Our work establishes judgment-grounded expansion as a concrete task and provides empirical and methodological foundations for the design of future collaborative review generation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T12:20:11Z)
• Auditing the Auditors: Does Community-based Moderation Get It Right? [0.5833117322405447]
  We analyze the consequences of consensus-based auditing in X's Community Notes.<n>Minority contributors' evaluations drift toward the majority, and their participation share falls on controversial topics.<n>We propose a two-stage auditing and aggregation algorithm that weights contributors by the stability of their past residuals rather than by agreement with the majority.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T21:58:13Z)
• Beyond Detection: Governing GenAI in Academic Peer Review as a Sociotechnical Challenge [7.402573615005516]
  Generative AI tools are increasingly entering academic peer review, raising questions about fairness, accountability, and the legitimacy of evaluative judgment.<n>This paper presents discourse analysis of 448 social media posts with interviews with 14 area chairs and program chairs from leading AI and HCI conferences.<n>We find broad agreement that GenAI may be acceptable for limited supportive tasks, but that core evaluative judgments, assessing novelty, contribution, and acceptance, should remain human responsibilities.<n>We argue that AI-assisted peer review is best governed not by blanket bans or detection alone, but by explicitly reserving evaluative judgment for humans while instituting enforceable, role-specific controls
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T19:23:04Z)
• From Bias Mitigation to Bias Negotiation: Governing Identity and Sociocultural Reasoning in Generative AI [0.0]
  LLMs act in the social world by drawing upon shared cultural patterns to make social situations understandable and actionable.<n>Identity is often part of the inferential substrate of competent judgment.<n> dominant governance regime for identity-related harm remains bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T21:20:10Z)
• The Current State of AI Bias Bounties: An Overview of Existing Programmes and Research [18.854429764918734]
  Current bias evaluation methods rarely engage with communities impacted by AI systems.<n>Inspired by bug bounties, bias bounties have been proposed as a reward-based method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T14:09:11Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• Community Moderation and the New Epistemology of Fact Checking on Social Media [124.26693978503339]
  Social media platforms have traditionally relied on independent fact-checking organizations to identify and flag misleading content.<n>X (formerly Twitter) and Meta have shifted towards community-driven content moderation by launching their own versions of crowd-sourced fact-checking.<n>We examine the current approaches to misinformation detection across major platforms, explore the emerging role of community-driven moderation, and critically evaluate both the promises and challenges of crowd-checking at scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T14:50:18Z)
• Are We on the Same Page? Examining Developer Perception Alignment in Open Source Code Reviews [2.66269503676104]
  Code reviews are a critical aspect of open-source software (OSS) development, ensuring quality and fostering collaboration. This study examines perceptions, challenges, and biases in OSS code review processes, focusing on the perspectives of Contributors and maintainers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-25T15:03:39Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving fine-grained aspects from a corpus of peer reviews. We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Provocation: Who benefits from "inclusion" in Generative AI? [3.3158518534707992]
  We argue that dominant structures of community participation in AI development and evaluation are not explicit enough about the benefits and harms that members of socially marginalized groups may experience as a result of their participation. We use this speculative context to itemize the barriers that need to be overcome in order for the proposed benefits to be realized, and harms mitigated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T00:18:25Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs [57.16442740983528]
  In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems ( TDSs) is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T16:45:50Z)
• A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming [124.89885800509505]
  Some researchers fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T20:55:08Z)
• Evaluate Confidence Instead of Perplexity for Zero-shot Commonsense Reasoning [85.1541170468617]
  This paper reconsiders the nature of commonsense reasoning and proposes a novel commonsense reasoning metric, Non-Replacement Confidence (NRC) Our proposed novel method boosts zero-shot performance on two commonsense reasoning benchmark datasets and further seven commonsense question-answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-23T14:42:14Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• Spatio-Temporal Graph Representation Learning for Fraudster Group Detection [50.779498955162644]
  Companies may hire fraudster groups to write fake reviews to either demote competitors or promote their own businesses. To detect such groups, a common model is to represent fraudster groups' static networks. We propose to first capitalize on the effectiveness of the HIN-RNN in both reviewers' representation learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-07T08:01:38Z)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)
• Assessing Classifier Fairness with Collider Bias [0.0]
  We develop theorems to guide fairness assessment avoiding the collider bias. We propose an unbiased assessment algorithm by utilising the developed theorems. Experiments and simulations show the proposed algorithm reduces collider biases significantly in the assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T12:41:02Z)
• Keeping Community in the Loop: Understanding Wikipedia Stakeholder Values for Machine Learning-Based Systems [14.808971334949119]
  We take a Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design approach to understanding a community-created and -maintained machine learning-based algorithm called the Objective Revision Evaluation System (ORES) ORES is a quality prediction system used in numerous Wikipedia applications and contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-14T16:30:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.