Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aditi Dhabalia
dblp:319/3723
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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.
| 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 | 2 |