EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lucy Havens
dblp:239/9371
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-8158-6039ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 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.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Collaborative and social computing · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
bias identification |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage Professionals · CHI 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness and bias |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage Professionals · CHI 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
workshop · 1.7machine learning · 1.7mixed-methods · 0.9mixed methods · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage ProfessionalsabstractDespite numerous efforts to mitigate their biases, ML systems continue to harm already-marginalized people. While predominant ML approaches assume bias can be removed and fair models can be created, we show that these are not always possible, nor desirable, goals. We reframe the problem of ML bias by creating models to identify biased language, drawing attention to a dataset's biases rather than trying to remove them. Then, through a workshop, we evaluated the models for a specific use case: workflows of information and heritage professionals. Our findings demonstrate the limitations of ML for identifying bias due to its contextual nature, the way in which approaches to mitigating it can simultaneously privilege and oppress different communities, and its inevitability. We demonstrate the need to expand ML approaches to bias and fairness, providing a mixed-methods approach to investigating the feasibility of removing bias or achieving fairness in a given ML use case. Lucy Havens, Benjamin Bach, Melissa Terras, Beatrice Alex |
CHI | 1 |