arXiv subjects

Allison Koenecke

Publications and source records attributed to Allison Koenecke.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Data Annotation as Measurement

Modern AI systems depend on annotated data, but annotation is rarely treated as the act of measurement that it is. Instead, annotation quality is commonly reduced to agreement: if multiple annotators assign the same annotation to a data instance, the annotations are taken to be high-quality. Yet agreement does not establish whether annotations validly capture the underlying concept they are meant to represent. In this paper, we argue that data annotation should be understood as a measurement problem. Like other forms of measurement, annotation requires defining a concept, operationalizing it through an instrument, applying that instrument, and evaluating the reliability and validity of the resulting measurements. Drawing on a literature review of annotation quality research (N=132) and semi-structured interviews with annotation team members (N=10), we develop a framework for diagnosing and correcting annotation issues. First, we map key decision points across annotation processes - including task design, annotator management, quality assessment, quality improvement, and adjudication - that shape annotation outcomes. Second, we identify five distinct sources of annotation issues: error, ambiguity, impossibility, subjectivity, and annotator identity. Annotation problems that appear similar at the level of outcomes often require different process-level interventions based on their sources. Finally, we translate measurement theory into practical guidance for annotation teams, showing how assessments of reliability and validity can move beyond agreement alone. By reframing annotation as measurement, we offer a conceptual foundation for improving the quality of annotated data used in AI research and practice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Scrutinizing Index-Based Risk Assessments: A Case Study in NYC Decision-making for Heat Emergency Management

Cities are increasingly turning to large-scale data analysis and machine learning to make consequential decisions. While the algorithmic fairness community has focused on analyzing the risks and benefits associated with these complex methods, there has been much less scrutiny of the many simpler, but still widely used, data-driven tools that support government decision-making in a variety of settings. In this work, we study hand-crafted indices for geographic targeting and decision-making in emergency management -- a field responsible for coordinating preparedness and response efforts to hazards ranging from natural disasters to human threats. Indices, which capture abstract principles and overarching priorities (e.g., reducing social vulnerability), are low-complexity models that statistically aggregate chosen variables. They are generally flexible and interpretable, but can also be sensitive to key design choices and require strong assumptions. Through a case study of decision-making for extreme heat emergencies in NYC, we examine the challenges that practitioners may face in selecting an index for preparedness and response actions. We map empirical findings from index-based simulations to concerns related to validity and reliability from the measurement literature and show via sensitivity analyses that different reasonable choices of input variables or spatial scale can result in substantive differences to index risk scores, thereby affecting downstream government decision-making. We contrast these challenges with considerations for developing predictive algorithms that more narrowly relate to concrete, measurable outcomes. Ultimately, we provide generalizable recommendations that practitioners and public-sector technologists can use for navigating the trade-offs between indices and predictive algorithms in other government settings.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Into the Unknown: Accounting for Missing Demographic Data when Mitigating Ad Delivery Skew

Online advertising platforms use algorithmic systems to power the process of matching ads to users, termed ad delivery. Prior audits have demonstrated that ad delivery can be skewed by demographic attributes, such that ads are systematically under-delivered to certain groups despite advertiser intent to reach groups proportionally. This under-delivery raises a serious concern in the context of ads promoting public services, which might prevent certain groups of individuals from accessing information about resources on the basis of their demographic identity. In the absence of platform-provided solutions to skewed ad delivery, advertisers can counteract skew by targeting demographic groups directly. However, direct targeting excludes users whose demographics the platform cannot infer ("unknown users") if advertising platforms do not provide a way to target unknown users directly, as is the case on Google Ads. We collaborate with a state-level government agency to reduce gender-based skew in ad delivery with an intervention that accounts for unknown users while incorporating gender-based targeting. In particular, we design a budget split intervention that directly incorporates unknown users and targets users with Google-inferred gender labels (i.e., male, female). We find that this intervention is a valuable approach to addressing ad delivery skew without excluding unknown users, and serves as a middle ground in the trade-off between higher costs (from more granular demographic targeting) and skew (from ignoring demographics entirely). This approach is responsive to the needs of real-world, resource-constrained advertisers who are committed to the equitable distribution of public service outreach via online advertising. We conclude with recommendations for government advertisers, online advertising platforms, and researchers.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

A Critical Pragmatism Approach for Algorithmic Fairness: Lessons from Urban Planning Theory

As data scientists grapple with increasingly complex ethical decisions in machine learning (ML) and data science, the field of algorithmic fairness has offered multiple solutions, from formal mathematical definitions to holistic notions of fairness drawn from various academic disciplines. However, navigating and implementing these fairness approaches in practice remains an ongoing challenge. In this paper, we draw a parallel between the types of problems arising in algorithmic fairness and urban planning. We frame algorithmic fairness problems as `wicked problems,' a term originating from the planning and policy space to describe the intractable, value-laden, and complex nature of this work. As such, we argue that the field of algorithmic fairness can learn from theoretical work in urban planning in ameliorating its own set of wicked problems. Urban planning is typically concerned with practical issues of governance, resource allocation, stakeholder engagement, and conflicts involving deep-seated differences. These are challenges that existing fairness frameworks can easily overlook. We present a flexible framework for designing fairer algorithms based on the urban planning theory approach of critical pragmatism -- a reflective and deliberative approach to addressing wicked problems that considers what practitioners actually do in the face of conflict and power. We provide specific recommendations and apply them to several case studies in ML and algorithm design: automated mortgage lending, school choice, and feminicide counterdata collection. Researchers and practitioners can incorporate these recommendations derived from urban planning into their ongoing work to more holistically address practical problems arising in fair algorithm design.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

LLMs in social services: How does chatbot accuracy affect human accuracy?

Social service programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) have eligibility rules that can be challenging to understand. For nonprofit caseworkers who often support clients in navigating a dozen or more complex programs, LLM-based chatbots may offer a means to provide better, faster help to clients whose situations may be less common. In this paper, we measure the potential effects of LLM-based chatbot suggestions on caseworkers' ability to provide accurate guidance. We first created a 770-question multiple-choice benchmark dataset of difficult, but realistic questions that a caseworker might receive. Next, using these benchmark questions and corresponding expert-verified answers, we conducted a randomized experiment with caseworkers recruited from nonprofit outreach organizations in Los Angeles. Caseworkers in the control condition did not see chatbot suggestions and had a mean accuracy of 49%. Caseworkers in the treatment condition saw chatbot suggestions that we artificially varied to range in aggregate accuracy from low (53%) to high (100%). Caseworker performance significantly improves as chatbot quality improves: high-quality chatbots (96-100% accurate) improved caseworker accuracy by 27 percentage points. At the question-level, incorrect chatbot suggestions substantially reduce caseworker accuracy, with a two-thirds reduction on easy questions where the control group performed best (without chatbot suggestions). Finally, improvements in caseworker accuracy level off as chatbot accuracy increases, a phenomenon that we call the "AI underreliance plateau," which is a concern for real-world deployment and highlights the importance of evaluating human-in-the-loop tools with their users.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Operationalizing Pluralistic Values in Large Language Model Alignment Reveals Trade-offs in Safety, Inclusivity, and Model Behavior

Although large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained using human feedback for safety and alignment with human values, alignment decisions often overlook human social diversity. This study examines how incorporating pluralistic values affects LLM behavior by systematically evaluating demographic variation and design parameters in the alignment pipeline. We collect alignment data from US and German participants (N = 1,095 participants, 27,375 ratings) who rated LLM responses across five dimensions: Toxicity, Emotional Awareness (EA), Sensitivity, Stereotypical Bias, and Helpfulness. We fine-tuned multiple Large Language Models and Large Reasoning Models using preferences from different social groups while varying rating scales, disagreement handling methods, and optimization techniques. The results revealed systematic demographic effects: male participants rated responses 18% less toxic than female participants; conservative and Black participants rated responses 27.9% and 44% higher on EA than liberal and White participants, respectively. Models fine-tuned on group-specific preferences exhibited distinct behaviors. Technical design choices showed strong effects: the preservation of rater disagreement achieved roughly 53% greater toxicity reduction than majority voting, and 5-point scales yielded about 22% more reduction than binary formats; and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) consistently outperformed Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) in multi-value optimization. These findings represent a preliminary step in answering a critical question: How should alignment balance expert-driven and user-driven signals to ensure both safety and fair representation?

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Introducing AI to an Online Petition Platform Changed Outputs but not Outcomes

The rapid integration of AI writing tools into online platforms raises critical questions about their impact on content production and outcomes. We leverage a unique natural experiment on Change$.$org, a leading social advocacy platform, to causally investigate the effects of an in-platform ''write with AI'' tool. To understand the impact of the AI integration, we collected 1.5 million petitions and employed a difference-in-differences analysis. Our findings reveal that in-platform AI access significantly altered the lexical features of petitions and increased petition homogeneity, but did not improve petition outcomes. We confirmed the results in a separate analysis of repeat petition writers who wrote petitions before and after introduction of the AI tool. The results suggest that while AI writing tools can profoundly reshape online content, their practical utility for improving desired outcomes may be less beneficial than anticipated, and introduce unintended consequences like content homogenization.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Analyzing Dialectical Biases in LLMs for Knowledge and Reasoning Benchmarks

Large language models (LLMs) are ubiquitous in modern day natural language processing. However, previous work has shown degraded LLM performance for under-represented English dialects. We analyze the effects of typifying "standard" American English language questions as non-"standard" dialectal variants on multiple choice question answering tasks and find up to a 20% reduction in accuracy. Additionally, we investigate the grammatical basis of under-performance in non-"standard" English questions. We find that individual grammatical rules have varied effects on performance, but some are more consequential than others: three specific grammar rules (existential "it", zero copula, and y'all) can explain the majority of performance degradation observed in multiple dialects. We call for future work to investigate bias mitigation methods focused on individual, high-impact grammatical structures.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Bias Delayed is Bias Denied? Assessing the Effect of Reporting Delays on Disparity Assessments

Conducting disparity assessments at regular time intervals is critical for surfacing potential biases in decision-making and improving outcomes across demographic groups. Because disparity assessments fundamentally depend on the availability of demographic information, their efficacy is limited by the availability and consistency of available demographic identifiers. While prior work has considered the impact of missing data on fairness, little attention has been paid to the role of delayed demographic data. Delayed data, while eventually observed, might be missing at the critical point of monitoring and action -- and delays may be unequally distributed across groups in ways that distort disparity assessments. We characterize such impacts in healthcare, using electronic health records of over 5M patients across primary care practices in all 50 states. Our contributions are threefold. First, we document the high rate of race and ethnicity reporting delays in a healthcare setting and demonstrate widespread variation in rates at which demographics are reported across different groups. Second, through a set of retrospective analyses using real data, we find that such delays impact disparity assessments and hence conclusions made across a range of consequential healthcare outcomes, particularly at more granular levels of state-level and practice-level assessments. Third, we find limited ability of conventional methods that impute missing race in mitigating the effects of reporting delays on the accuracy of timely disparity assessments. Our insights and methods generalize to many domains of algorithmic fairness where delays in the availability of sensitive information may confound audits, thus deserving closer attention within a pipeline-aware machine learning framework.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Addressing Pitfalls in Auditing Practices of Automatic Speech Recognition Technologies: A Case Study of People with Aphasia

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems' growing use warrants robust auditing approaches to ensure equitable transcription quality, especially for people with speech disorders like aphasia who disproportionately depend on ASR. While academic and industry audits have revealed performance disparities across user populations, standard auditing practices often overlook nuances that risk masking harm to marginalized groups. We identify three common pitfalls in standard ASR audits: (1) adhering to one method of text standardization, which can mask variance in ASR performance and ignore the standardization preferences of marginalized communities; (2) displaying high-level demographic findings without considering performance disparities by nuanced intersectional subgroups, or conditioning on relevant acoustic properties; and (3) reporting only one gold-standard metric (Word Error Rate), which inadequately quantifies common generative AI errors like hallucinations. We propose a holistic auditing framework addressing these pitfalls, and in a case study of six popular ASR systems, find consistently worse ASR performance for speakers with aphasia relative to a control group. We call on practitioners to implement these robust, community-driven ASR auditing practices better suited for the rapidly changing ASR landscape.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

A Framework for Auditing Chatbots for Dialect-Based Quality-of-Service Harms

Increasingly, individuals who engage in online activities are expected to interact with large language model (LLM)-based chatbots. Prior work has shown that LLMs can display dialect bias, which occurs when they produce harmful responses when prompted with text written in minoritized dialects. However, whether and how this bias propagates to systems built on top of LLMs, such as chatbots, is still unclear. We conduct a review of existing approaches for auditing LLMs for dialect bias and show that they cannot be straightforwardly adapted to audit LLM-based chatbots due to issues of substantive and ecological validity. To address this, we present a framework for auditing LLM-based chatbots for dialect bias by measuring the extent to which they produce quality-of-service harms, which occur when systems do not work equally well for different people. Our framework has three key characteristics that make it useful in practice. First, by leveraging dynamically generated instead of pre-existing text, our framework enables testing over any dialect, facilitates multi-turn conversations, and represents how users are likely to interact with chatbots in the real world. Second, by measuring quality-of-service harms, our framework aligns audit results with the real-world outcomes of chatbot use. Third, our framework requires only query access to an LLM-based chatbot, meaning that it can be leveraged equally effectively by internal auditors, external auditors, and even individual users in order to promote accountability. To demonstrate the efficacy of our framework, we conduct a case study audit of Amazon Rufus, a widely-used LLM-based chatbot in the customer service domain. Our results reveal that Rufus produces lower-quality responses to prompts written in minoritized English dialects, and that these quality-of-service harms are exacerbated by the presence of typos in prompts.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Characterizing Bias: Benchmarking Large Language Models in Simplified versus Traditional Chinese

While the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have been studied in both Simplified and Traditional Chinese, it is yet unclear whether LLMs exhibit differential performance when prompted in these two variants of written Chinese. This understanding is critical, as disparities in the quality of LLM responses can perpetuate representational harms by ignoring the different cultural contexts underlying Simplified versus Traditional Chinese, and can exacerbate downstream harms in LLM-facilitated decision-making in domains such as education or hiring. To investigate potential LLM performance disparities, we design two benchmark tasks that reflect real-world scenarios: regional term choice (prompting the LLM to name a described item which is referred to differently in Mainland China and Taiwan), and regional name choice (prompting the LLM to choose who to hire from a list of names in both Simplified and Traditional Chinese). For both tasks, we audit the performance of 11 leading commercial LLM services and open-sourced models -- spanning those primarily trained on English, Simplified Chinese, or Traditional Chinese. Our analyses indicate that biases in LLM responses are dependent on both the task and prompting language: while most LLMs disproportionately favored Simplified Chinese responses in the regional term choice task, they surprisingly favored Traditional Chinese names in the regional name choice task. We find that these disparities may arise from differences in training data representation, written character preferences, and tokenization of Simplified and Traditional Chinese. These findings highlight the need for further analysis of LLM biases; as such, we provide an open-sourced benchmark dataset to foster reproducible evaluations of future LLM behavior across Chinese language variants (https://github.com/brucelyu17/SC-TC-Bench).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Fairness-in-the-Workflow: How Machine Learning Practitioners at Big Tech Companies Approach Fairness in Recommender Systems

Recommender systems (RS), which are widely deployed across high-stakes domains, are susceptible to biases that can cause large-scale societal impacts. Researchers have proposed methods to measure and mitigate such biases - but translating academic theory into practice is inherently challenging. Through a semi-structured interview study (N=11), we map the RS practitioner workflow within large technology companies, focusing on how technical teams consider fairness internally and in collaboration with legal, data, and fairness teams. We identify key challenges to incorporating fairness into existing RS workflows: defining fairness in RS contexts, balancing multi-stakeholder interests, and navigating dynamic environments. We also identify key organization-wide challenges: making time for fairness work and facilitating cross-team communication. Finally, we offer actionable recommendations for the RS community, including practitioners and HCI researchers.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Tasks and Roles in Legal AI: Data Curation, Annotation, and Verification

The application of AI tools to the legal field feels natural: large legal document collections could be used with specialized AI to improve workflow efficiency for lawyers and ameliorate the "justice gap" for underserved clients. However, legal documents differ from the web-based text that underlies most AI systems. The challenges of legal AI are both specific to the legal domain, and confounded with the expectation of AI's high performance in high-stakes settings. We identify three areas of special relevance to practitioners: data curation, data annotation, and output verification. First, it is difficult to obtain usable legal texts. Legal collections are inconsistent, analog, and scattered for reasons technical, economic, and jurisdictional. AI tools can assist document curation efforts, but the lack of existing data also limits AI performance. Second, legal data annotation typically requires significant expertise to identify complex phenomena such as modes of judicial reasoning or controlling precedents. We describe case studies of AI systems that have been developed to improve the efficiency of human annotation in legal contexts and identify areas of underperformance. Finally, AI-supported work in the law is valuable only if results are verifiable and trustworthy. We describe both the abilities of AI systems to support evaluation of their outputs, as well as new approaches to systematic evaluation of computational systems in complex domains. We call on both legal and AI practitioners to collaborate across disciplines and to release open access materials to support the development of novel, high-performing, and reliable AI tools for legal applications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

"Don't Forget the Teachers": Towards an Educator-Centered Understanding of Harms from Large Language Models in Education

Education technologies (edtech) are increasingly incorporating new features built on large language models (LLMs), with the goals of enriching the processes of teaching and learning and ultimately improving learning outcomes. However, the potential downstream impacts of LLM-based edtech remain understudied. Prior attempts to map the risks of LLMs have not been tailored to education specifically, even though it is a unique domain in many respects: from its population (students are often children, who can be especially impacted by technology) to its goals (providing the correct answer may be less important for learners than understanding how to arrive at an answer) to its implications for higher-order skills that generalize across contexts (e.g., critical thinking and collaboration). We conducted semi-structured interviews with six edtech providers representing leaders in the K-12 space, as well as a diverse group of 23 educators with varying levels of experience with LLM-based edtech. Through a thematic analysis, we explored how each group is anticipating, observing, and accounting for potential harms from LLMs in education. We find that, while edtech providers focus primarily on mitigating technical harms, i.e., those that can be measured based solely on LLM outputs themselves, educators are more concerned about harms that result from the broader impacts of LLMs, i.e., those that require observation of interactions between students, educators, school systems, and edtech to measure. Overall, we (1) develop an education-specific overview of potential harms from LLMs, (2) highlight gaps between conceptions of harm by edtech providers and those by educators, and (3) make recommendations to facilitate the centering of educators in the design and development of edtech tools.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

SPHERE: Unveiling Spatial Blind Spots in Vision-Language Models Through Hierarchical Evaluation

Current vision-language models may grasp basic spatial cues and simple directions (e.g. left, right, front, back), but struggle with the multi-dimensional spatial reasoning necessary for human-like understanding and real-world applications. To address this gap, we develop SPHERE (Spatial Perception and Hierarchical Evaluation of REasoning), a hierarchical evaluation framework supported by a new human-annotated dataset. SPHERE systematically probes models across increasing levels of complexity, from fundamental skills to multi-skill integration and high-level reasoning that combines spatial, visual, and logical understanding. Benchmark evaluation of state-of-the-art models reveals significant deficiencies, especially in reasoning about distance and proximity, understanding both egocentric and allocentric perspectives, and applying spatial logic in physical contexts. These findings expose critical blind spots in existing models and underscore the need for more advanced spatial reasoning techniques, driving the development of vision-language models that align more closely with human spatial cognition. The SPHERE benchmark is available at https://github.com/zwenyu/SPHERE-VLM.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Automate or Assist? The Role of Computational Models in Identifying Gendered Discourse in US Capital Trial Transcripts

The language used by US courtroom actors in criminal trials has long been studied for biases. However, systematic studies for bias in high-stakes court trials have been difficult, due to the nuanced nature of bias and the legal expertise required. Large language models offer the possibility to automate annotation. But validating the computational approach requires both an understanding of how automated methods fit in existing annotation workflows and what they really offer. We present a case study of adding a computational model to a complex and high-stakes problem: identifying gender-biased language in US capital trials for women defendants. Our team of experienced death-penalty lawyers and NLP technologists pursue a three-phase study: first annotating manually, then training and evaluating computational models, and finally comparing expert annotations to model predictions. Unlike many typical NLP tasks, annotating for gender bias in months-long capital trials is complicated, with many individual judgment calls. Contrary to standard arguments for automation that are based on efficiency and scalability, legal experts find the computational models most useful in providing opportunities to reflect on their own bias in annotation and to build consensus on annotation rules. This experience suggests that seeking to replace experts with computational models for complex annotation is both unrealistic and undesirable. Rather, computational models offer valuable opportunities to assist the legal experts in annotation-based studies.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Careless Whisper: Speech-to-Text Hallucination Harms

Speech-to-text services aim to transcribe input audio as accurately as possible. They increasingly play a role in everyday life, for example in personal voice assistants or in customer-company interactions. We evaluate Open AI's Whisper, a state-of-the-art automated speech recognition service outperforming industry competitors, as of 2023. While many of Whisper's transcriptions were highly accurate, we find that roughly 1\% of audio transcriptions contained entire hallucinated phrases or sentences which did not exist in any form in the underlying audio. We thematically analyze the Whisper-hallucinated content, finding that 38\% of hallucinations include explicit harms such as perpetuating violence, making up inaccurate associations, or implying false authority. We then study why hallucinations occur by observing the disparities in hallucination rates between speakers with aphasia (who have a lowered ability to express themselves using speech and voice) and a control group. We find that hallucinations disproportionately occur for individuals who speak with longer shares of non-vocal durations -- a common symptom of aphasia. We call on industry practitioners to ameliorate these language-model-based hallucinations in Whisper, and to raise awareness of potential biases amplified by hallucinations in downstream applications of speech-to-text models.

cs.CL↗