Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alicia DeVos
dblp:292/3755
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0002-9912-4198ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 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.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-AI interaction · 77% Collaborative and social computing · 23% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Human-AI interaction
algorithmic auditing |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users' strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior · CHI 2022 |
Collaborative and social computing › team collaboration
collaborative sensemaking |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users' strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior · CHI 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
workshop · 0.6think-aloud interviews · 0.6diary study · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users' strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behaviorabstractRecent work in HCI suggests that users can be powerful in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors that formal auditing approaches fail to detect. However, it is not well understood how users are often able to be so effective, nor how we might support more effective user-driven auditing. To investigate, we conducted a series of think-aloud interviews, diary studies, and workshops, exploring how users find and make sense of harmful behaviors in algorithmic systems, both individually and collectively. Based on our findings, we present a process model capturing the dynamics of and influences on users’ search and sensemaking behaviors. We find that 1) users’ search strategies and interpretations are heavily guided by their personal experiences with and exposures to societal bias; and 2) collective sensemaking amongst multiple users is invaluable in user-driven algorithm audits. We offer directions for the design of future methods and tools that can better support user-driven auditing. Alicia DeVos, Aditi Dhabalia, Hong Shen 0004, Kenneth Holstein, Motahhare Eslami |
CHI | 1 |
| 2021 | Everyday Algorithm Auditing: Understanding the Power of Everyday Users in Surfacing Harmful Algorithmic BehaviorsabstractA growing body of literature has proposed formal approaches to audit algorithmic systems for biased and harmful behaviors. While formal auditing approaches have been greatly impactful, they often suffer major blindspots, with critical issues surfacing only in the context of everyday use once systems are deployed. Recent years have seen many cases in which everyday users of algorithmic systems detect and raise awareness about harmful behaviors that they encounter in the course of their everyday interactions with these systems. However, to date little academic attention has been granted to these bottom-up, user-driven auditing processes. In this paper, we propose and explore the concept of everyday algorithm auditing, a process in which users detect, understand, and interrogate problematic machine behaviors via their day-to-day interactions with algorithmic systems. We argue that everyday users are powerful in surfacing problematic machine behaviors that may elude detection via more centrally-organized forms of auditing, regardless of users' knowledge about the underlying algorithms. We analyze several real-world cases of everyday algorithm auditing, drawing lessons from these cases for the design of future platforms and tools that facilitate such auditing behaviors. Finally, we discuss work that lies ahead, toward bridging the gaps between formal auditing approaches and the organic auditing behaviors that emerge in everyday use of algorithmic systems. Hong Shen 0004, Alicia DeVos, Motahhare Eslami, Kenneth Holstein |
Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. | 2 |