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

Jens Frankenreiter

dblp:372/7472 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0003-0541-8521ORCID · corroborated

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 2 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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.

Network and information security
2 papers
Privacy and data protection · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Information extraction and text analysis · 77% Language models and text generation · 23%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection
privacy compliance
1.022025
Measuring Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act Over Space and Time · CHI 2024
Dark Patterns in the Opt-Out Process and Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) · CHI 2025
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › document understanding › legal text analysis
legal text classification
0.912025
Lawma: The Power of Specialization for Legal Annotation · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation
0.312025
Lawma: The Power of Specialization for Legal Annotation · ICLR 2025

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

web measurement · 0.9prompting · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.9compliance analysis · 0.9longitudinal web measurement · 0.8automated tracking · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Dark Patterns in the Opt-Out Process and Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
abstract
To protect consumer privacy, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) mandates that businesses provide consumers with a straightforward way to opt out of the sale and sharing of their personal information. However, the control that businesses enjoy over the opt-out process allows them to impose hurdles on consumers aiming to opt out, including by employing dark patterns. Motivated by the enactment of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which strengthens the CCPA and explicitly forbids certain dark patterns in the opt-out process, we investigate how dark patterns are used in opt-out processes and assess their compliance with CCPA regulations. Our research reveals that websites employ a variety of dark patterns. Some of these patterns are explicitly prohibited under the CCPA; others evidently take advantage of legal loopholes. Despite the initial efforts to restrict dark patterns by policymakers, there is more work to be done.
Van Hong Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Ranya Sharma, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter, Lior Jacob Strahilevitz
CHI6
2025 Lawma: The Power of Specialization for Legal Annotation
abstract
Annotation and classification of legal text are central components of empirical legal research. Traditionally, these tasks are often delegated to trained research assistants. Motivated by the advances in language modeling, empirical legal scholars are increasingly turning to commercial models, hoping that it will alleviate the significant cost of human annotation. In this work, we present a comprehensive analysis of large language models’ current abilities to perform legal annotation tasks. To do so, we construct CaselawQA, a benchmark comprising 260 legal text classification tasks, nearly all new to the machine learning community. We demonstrate that commercial models, such as GPT-4.5 and Claude 3.7 Sonnet, achieve non-trivial accuracy but generally fall short of the performance required for legal work. We then demonstrate that small, lightly fine-tuned models vastly outperform commercial models. A few dozen to a few hundred labeled examples are usually enough to achieve higher accuracy. Our work points to a viable alternative to the predominant practice of prompting commercial models. For concrete legal annotation tasks with some available labeled data, researchers are likely better off using a fine-tuned open-source model. Code, datasets, and fine-tuned models are available at https://github.com/socialfoundations/lawma.
Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Vedant Nanda, Rediet Abebe, Stefan Bechtold, Christoph Engel 0001, Jens Frankenreiter, Krishna P. Gummadi, Moritz Hardt, Michael Livermore
ICLR6
2024 Measuring Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act Over Space and Time
abstract
The widespread sharing of consumers’ personal information with third parties raises significant privacy concerns. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) mandates that online businesses offer consumers the option to opt out of the sale and sharing of personal information. Our study automatically tracks the presence of the opt-out link longitudinally across multiple states after the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) went into effect. We categorize websites based on whether they are subject to CCPA and investigate cases of potential non-compliance. We find a number of websites that implement the opt-out link early and across all examined states but also find a significant number of CCPA-subject websites that fail to offer any opt-out methods even when CCPA is in effect. Our findings can shed light on how websites are reacting to the CCPA and identify potential gaps in compliance and opt-out method designs that hinder consumers from exercising CCPA opt-out rights.
Van Hong Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter, Lior Jacob Strahilevitz
CHI5