Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Diana Qing

dblp:317/6735 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 2 since 2021Computer networks · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer networks
1 paper
Network measurement and analytics · 67% Network management and operations · 33%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Human-AI interaction · 87% Health and well-being technologies · 13%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Network management and operations
network monitoring
1.012026
Iris: Expressive Traffic Analysis for the Modern Internet · NSDI 2026
Network measurement and analytics
traffic analysis
1.012026
Iris: Expressive Traffic Analysis for the Modern Internet · NSDI 2026
Network measurement and analytics
traffic classification
1.012026
Iris: Expressive Traffic Analysis for the Modern Internet · NSDI 2026
Human-AI interaction
AI-assisted decision-making
0.612022
Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Support · CHI 2022
Human-AI interaction
algorithmic decision-making
0.612022
How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions · CHI 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.212022
How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions · CHI 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

interview study · 1.7quantitative disparity analysis · 1.1mixed-methods study · 1.1sketch algorithms · 1.0programmable data plane · 1.0contextual inquiry · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Iris: Expressive Traffic Analysis for the Modern Internet
Thea Rossman, Diana Qing, Gerry Wan, Zakir Durumeric
NSDI2
2022 How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions
abstract
Machine learning tools have been deployed in various contexts to support human decision-making, in the hope that human-algorithm collaboration can improve decision quality. However, the question of whether such collaborations reduce or exacerbate biases in decision-making remains underexplored. In this work, we conducted a mixed-methods study, analyzing child welfare call screen workers’ decision-making over a span of four years, and interviewing them on how they incorporate algorithmic predictions into their decision-making process. Our data analysis shows that, compared to the algorithm alone, workers reduced the disparity in screen-in rate between Black and white children from 20% to 9%. Our qualitative data show that workers achieved this by making holistic risk assessments and adjusting for the algorithm’s limitations. Our analyses also show more nuanced results about how human-algorithm collaboration affects prediction accuracy, and how to measure these effects. These results shed light on potential mechanisms for improving human-algorithm collaboration in high-risk decision-making contexts.
Hao Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Kenneth Holstein, Steven Z. Wu, Haiyi Zhu
CHI6
2022 Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Support
abstract
AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers’ experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. Overall, we observe how workers’ reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS’s capabilities and limitations relative to their own, (3) organizational pressures and incentives around the use of the ADS, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives. Drawing upon these findings, we discuss design implications towards supporting more effective human-AI decision-making.
Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Hao Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Steven Z. Wu, Haiyi Zhu, Kenneth Holstein
CHI6