arXiv subjects

Bernease Herman

Publications and source records attributed to Bernease Herman.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Understanding Privacy Norms Around LLM-Based Chatbots: A Contextual Integrity Perspective

LLM-driven chatbots like ChatGPT have created large volumes of conversational data, but little is known about how user privacy expectations are evolving with this technology. We conduct a survey experiment with 300 US ChatGPT users to understand emerging privacy norms for sharing chatbot data. Our findings reveal a stark disconnect between user concerns and behavior: 82% of respondents rated chatbot conversations as sensitive or highly sensitive - more than email or social media posts - but nearly half reported discussing health topics and over one-third discussed personal finances with ChatGPT. Participants expressed strong privacy concerns (t(299) = 8.5, p < .01) and doubted their conversations would remain private (t(299) = -6.9, p < .01). Despite this, respondents uniformly rejected sharing personal data (search history, emails, device access) for improved services, even in exchange for premium features worth $200. To identify which factors influence appropriate chatbot data sharing, we presented participants with factorial vignettes manipulating seven contextual factors. Linear mixed models revealed that only the transmission factors such as informed consent, data anonymization, or the removal of personally identifiable information, significantly affected perceptions of appropriateness and concern for data access. Surprisingly, contextual factors including the recipient of the data (hospital vs. tech company), purpose (research vs. advertising), type of content, and geographic location did not show significant effects. Our results suggest that users apply consistent baseline privacy expectations to chatbot data, prioritizing procedural safeguards over recipient trustworthiness. This has important implications for emerging agentic AI systems that assume user willingness to integrate personal data across platforms.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Laboratory-Scale AI: Open-Weight Models are Competitive with ChatGPT Even in Low-Resource Settings

The rapid proliferation of generative AI has raised questions about the competitiveness of lower-parameter, locally tunable, open-weight models relative to high-parameter, API-guarded, closed-weight models in terms of performance, domain adaptation, cost, and generalization. Centering under-resourced yet risk-intolerant settings in government, research, and healthcare, we see for-profit closed-weight models as incompatible with requirements for transparency, privacy, adaptability, and standards of evidence. Yet the performance penalty in using open-weight models, especially in low-data and low-resource settings, is unclear. We assess the feasibility of using smaller, open-weight models to replace GPT-4-Turbo in zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuned regimes, assuming access to only a single, low-cost GPU. We assess value-sensitive issues around bias, privacy, and abstention on three additional tasks relevant to those topics. We find that with relatively low effort, very low absolute monetary cost, and relatively little data for fine-tuning, small open-weight models can achieve competitive performance in domain-adapted tasks without sacrificing generality. We then run experiments considering practical issues in bias, privacy, and hallucination risk, finding that open models offer several benefits over closed models. We intend this work as a case study in understanding the opportunity cost of reproducibility and transparency over for-profit state-of-the-art zero shot performance, finding this cost to be marginal under realistic settings.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Epistemic Parity: Reproducibility as an Evaluation Metric for Differential Privacy

Differential privacy (DP) data synthesizers support public release of sensitive information, offering theoretical guarantees for privacy but limited evidence of utility in practical settings. Utility is typically measured as the error on representative proxy tasks, such as descriptive statistics, accuracy of trained classifiers, or performance over a query workload. The ability for these results to generalize to practitioners' experience has been questioned in a number of settings, including the U.S. Census. In this paper, we propose an evaluation methodology for synthetic data that avoids assumptions about the representativeness of proxy tasks, instead measuring the likelihood that published conclusions would change had the authors used synthetic data, a condition we call epistemic parity. Our methodology consists of reproducing empirical conclusions of peer-reviewed papers on real, publicly available data, then re-running these experiments a second time on DP synthetic data, and comparing the results. We instantiate our methodology over a benchmark of recent peer-reviewed papers that analyze public datasets in the ICPSR repository. We model quantitative claims computationally to automate the experimental workflow, and model qualitative claims by reproducing visualizations and comparing the results manually. We then generate DP synthetic datasets using multiple state-of-the-art mechanisms, and estimate the likelihood that these conclusions will hold. We find that state-of-the-art DP synthesizers are able to achieve high epistemic parity for several papers in our benchmark. However, some papers, and particularly some specific findings, are difficult to reproduce for any of the synthesizers. We advocate for a new class of mechanisms that favor stronger utility guarantees and offer privacy protection with a focus on application-specific threat models and risk-assessment.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2022

Rethinking Streaming Machine Learning Evaluation

While most work on evaluating machine learning (ML) models focuses on computing accuracy on batches of data, tracking accuracy alone in a streaming setting (i.e., unbounded, timestamp-ordered datasets) fails to appropriately identify when models are performing unexpectedly. In this position paper, we discuss how the nature of streaming ML problems introduces new real-world challenges (e.g., delayed arrival of labels) and recommend additional metrics to assess streaming ML performance.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

An Algorithmic Equity Toolkit for Technology Audits by Community Advocates and Activists

A wave of recent scholarship documenting the discriminatory harms of algorithmic systems has spurred widespread interest in algorithmic accountability and regulation. Yet effective accountability and regulation is stymied by a persistent lack of resources supporting public understanding of algorithms and artificial intelligence. Through interactions with a US-based civil rights organization and their coalition of community organizations, we identify a need for (i) heuristics that aid stakeholders in distinguishing between types of analytic and information systems in lay language, and (ii) risk assessment tools for such systems that begin by making algorithms more legible. The present work delivers a toolkit to achieve these aims. This paper both presents the Algorithmic Equity Toolkit (AEKit) Equity as an artifact, and details how our participatory process shaped its design. Our work fits within human-computer interaction scholarship as a demonstration of the value of HCI methods and approaches to problems in the area of algorithmic transparency and accountability.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

The Promise and Peril of Human Evaluation for Model Interpretability

Transparency, user trust, and human comprehension are popular ethical motivations for interpretable machine learning. In support of these goals, researchers evaluate model explanation performance using humans and real world applications. This alone presents a challenge in many areas of artificial intelligence. In this position paper, we propose a distinction between descriptive and persuasive explanations. We discuss reasoning suggesting that functional interpretability may be correlated with cognitive function and user preferences. If this is indeed the case, evaluation and optimization using functional metrics could perpetuate implicit cognitive bias in explanations that threaten transparency. Finally, we propose two potential research directions to disambiguate cognitive function and explanation models, retaining control over the tradeoff between accuracy and interpretability.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2017

Synthetic Data for Social Good

Data for good implies unfettered access to data. But data owners must be conservative about how, when, and why they share data or risk violating the trust of the people they aim to help, losing their funding, or breaking the law. Data sharing agreements can help prevent privacy violations, but require a level of specificity that is premature during preliminary discussions, and can take over a year to establish. We consider the generation and use of synthetic data to facilitate ad hoc collaborations involving sensitive data. A good synthetic dataset has two properties: it is representative of the original data, and it provides strong guarantees about privacy. In this paper, we discuss important use cases for synthetic data that challenge the state of the art in privacy-preserving data generation, and describe DataSynthesizer, a dataset generation tool that takes a sensitive dataset as input and generates a structurally and statistically similar synthetic dataset, with strong privacy guarantees, as output. The data owners need not release their data, while potential collaborators can begin developing models and methods with some confidence that their results will work similarly on the real dataset. The distinguishing feature of DataSynthesizer is its usability - in most cases, the data owner need not specify any parameters to start generating and sharing data safely and effectively. The code implementing DataSynthesizer is publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/DataResponsibly. The work on DataSynthesizer is part of the Data, Responsibly project, where the goal is to operationalize responsibility in data sharing, integration, analysis and use.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2017

Data science for urban equity: Making gentrification an accessible topic for data scientists, policymakers, and the community

The University of Washington eScience Institute runs an annual Data Science for Social Good (DSSG) program that selects four projects each year to train students from a wide range of disciplines while helping community members execute social good projects, often with an urban focus. We present observations and deliberations of one such project, the DSSG 2017 'Equitable Futures' project, which investigates the ongoing gentrification process and the increasingly inequitable access to opportunities in Seattle. Similar processes can be observed in many major cities. The project connects issues usually analyzed in the disciplines of the built environment, geography, sociology, economics, social work and city governments with data science methodologies and visualizations.

cs.CY↗