EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sherol Chen
dblp:66/68
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0007-9070-7489ORCID · 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.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-AI interaction · 61% Design research and methods · 39% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Human-AI interaction
AI-assisted writing |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants · CHI 2024 |
Design research and methods
design space |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants · CHI 2024 |
Human-AI interaction › AI-assisted writing
writing assistant |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants · CHI 2024 |
Design research and methods › research methodology
systematic review |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants · CHI 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
systematic review · 0.8community collaboration · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Beyond Thumbs Up/Down: Untangling Challenges of Fine-Grained Feedback for Text-to-Image GenerationabstractHuman feedback plays a critical role in learning and refining reward models for text-to-image generation, but the optimal form the feedback should take for learning an accurate reward function has not been conclusively established. This paper investigates the effectiveness of fine-grained feedback which captures nuanced distinctions in image quality and prompt-alignment, compared to traditional coarse-grained feedback (for example, thumbs up/down or ranking between a set of options). While fine-grained feedback holds promise, particularly for systems catering to diverse societal preferences, we show that demonstrating its superiority to coarse-grained feedback is not automatic. Through experiments on real and synthetic preference data, we surface the complexities of building effective models due to the interplay of model choice, feedback type, and the alignment between human judgment and computational interpretation. We identify key challenges in eliciting and utilizing fine-grained feedback, prompting a reassessment of its assumed benefits and practicality. Our findings -- e.g., that fine-grained feedback can lead to worse models for a fixed budget, in some settings; however, in controlled settings with known attributes, fine grained rewards can indeed be more helpful -- call for careful consideration of feedback attributes and potentially beckon novel modeling approaches to appropriately unlock the potential value of fine-grained feedback in-the-wild. Katie Collins, Najoung Kim, Yonatan Bitton, Verena Rieser, Shayegan Omidshafiei, Yushi Hu, Sherol Chen, Senjuti Dutta, Minsuk Chang, Kimin Lee, Youwei Liang, Georgina Evans, Sahil Singla 0005, Gang Li 0021, Adrian Weller, Junfeng He, Deepak Ramachandran, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham |
AIES (1) | 7 |
| 2024 | A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing AssistantsabstractIn our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions and codes by systematically reviewing 115 papers, while leveraging the expertise of researchers in various disciplines. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the design of new writing assistants. Mina Lee 0002, Katy Ilonka Gero, John Joon Young Chung, Simon Buckingham Shum, Vipul Raheja, Hua Shen 0005, Subhashini Venugopalan, Thiemo Wambsganss, David Zhou, Emad A. Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L. C. Guo, Md. Naimul Hoque, Simon Knight 0001, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Antonette Shibani, Disha Shrivastava, Lila Shroff, Agnia Sergeyuk, Jessi Stark, Sarah Sterman, Sitong Wang 0001, Antoine Bosselut, Daniel Buschek, Joseph Chee Chang, Sherol Chen, Max Kreminski, Joonsuk Park, Roy D. Pea, Eugenia Ha Rim Rho, Shannon Shen 0001, Pao Siangliulue |
CHI | 30 |