arXiv subjects

Daniel Chechelnitsky

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel Chechelnitsky.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Making a Name for Myself: On Academic Naming Policies and their Impact

In academic publishing, names connect scholars to their work. When scholars change their names, including for marriage, academic recognition, or gender transition, they may lose credit for past publications. However, despite significant impacts on citation accuracy and researcher well-being, no existing studies examine how naming policies in computer science serve researchers who change their names. We use a mixed-methods approach combining surveys, interviews, and large-scale citation analysis of papers from eight major computer science venues from 2019-2025. We document the multi-year advocacy effort that established the first name change policies, identify implementation barriers including incomplete publisher updates and months-long processing delays. Researchers continue being cited with misparsed and incorrect names despite publisher updates. When these citation errors happen, interviewees report significant mental health impacts, including stress, anxiety, and safety risks. Empirically, we find that venues with accessible and visible name change policies have significantly fewer citation errors compared to inaccessible policies (899 vs. 996 errors per 1,000 papers). Our annotation analysis shows that deadnaming of transgender researchers in citations decreased by 92% from 2019 to 2024. Our findings demonstrate the importance of inclusive publishing policies, for which name change policy advocacy led by trans researchers has been a significant driver. We recommend that venues adopt proactive visible name change policies, support queer advocacy groups, and improve publication infrastructure to build an inclusive publishing landscape. The accompanied toolkit to check errors in bibliographic latex file is available here https://github.com/pranav-ust/cite-updater.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Ouvia: A User-centered Framework for Measuring Usability of Speech Translation in Real-World Communication Scenarios

Speech translation (ST) is increasingly adopted in user applications, yet its evaluation largely focuses on decontextualized testbeds and holistic quality, rather than end users' communication needs. We introduce Ouvia, an evaluation framework for measuring user-perceived usability of speech translation outputs in real-world settings. Ouvia focuses on one-to-one communication: an English speaker needs to convey a request to a Portuguese speaker, and the message is automatically translated. Through a custom web app and multi-phase study design, we collect more than 1,750 such interactions in healthcare and everyday situations, mediated by four ST systems, involving speakers from three English dialects and two genders. We find that modern ST serves people only to a limited extent -- only around half of interactions are rated as usable -- with significant gaps in reported usability across demographic groups. Moreover, among quality metrics, we find that QA-based evaluation is a substantially stronger predictor of real-world usability than standard approaches. Together, these findings stress the importance of situated, user-centered evaluation frameworks that go beyond holistic quality scores and attend to who the technology serves -- and how well.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Empire Amplifier: Uncovering and Contesting the Prioritization of Colonial Content on Platforms Through Community-Informed Algorithmic Auditing

Though online platforms claim to amplify Indigenous voices, Indigenous communities are worried that these systems are instead eroding their language and culture. We conduct a community-informed algorithmic audit to explore whether online platforms sustain or endanger Indigenous cultural practice. First, we review ethnographic research pertaining to the cultural anxieties of a specific Indigenous community, as Indigenous peoples are not a monolith. We consider concerns from Kyrgyz communities who believe that platforms are expanding Russia's linguistic influence and threatening their language. Next, we construct and conduct an algorithmic audit in conversation with the community. Our audit investigates deep-seated fears among Kyrgyz caregivers that YouTube encourages their children to speak Russian instead of Kyrgyz, their heritage language. We measure how the YouTube recommendation algorithm prioritizes content across Indigenous and non-Indigenous languages for child users. Our results validate caregiver concerns, as we find that YouTube primarily recommends non-Kyrgyz content to Kyrgyz children, even when children signal clear preferences for Kyrgyz content. Thus, platform recommendations reinforce Kyrgyz children's offline uptake of colonial language ideologies. Finally, we evaluate strategies to align platform behavior with Indigenous values. We identify effective end-user practices for reducing the proportion of Russian-language YouTube recommendations, like cross-generational device sharing. Overall, our work uncovers how platforms can amplify colonial influence, rather than revitalizing Indigenous cultural heritage. We encourage researchers to consider how algorithmic systems can reimpose oppressive power structures that decolonial efforts have sought to dismantle.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Locating Translation as a Craft in the Age of AI Translation

Rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) and similar automated approaches for translation tasks is increasingly affecting the landscape of translation technologies. As concerns about the outsourcing of translator work to these automated translation tools grow, it is increasingly crucial to gather insights from the translation community directly. To this end, we conduct an interview study with 19 professional translators working across 11 languages and 11 domains to understand their perspectives, experiences, and concerns with using translation technologies in their work. We find that translators are cautious when incorporating new tools into their workflow, with several expressing concerns that machine translation (MT) and LLMs are infringing on the necessary human aspects and verification processes of translation. Importantly, translators are worried that these tools have potential for harmful downstream effects due to compromising the human aspects of translation work. These findings demonstrate the need to develop translation technologies that directly serve translators' needs rather than replacing human translation. This can be done by focusing more on the assistive tools that emphasize the uncertain, social, and ultimately human character of translation, rather than automation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Not Like Us, Hunty: Measuring Perceptions and Behavioral Effects of Minoritized Anthropomorphic Cues in LLMs

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly adapt and personalize to diverse sets of users, there is an increased risk of systems appropriating sociolects, i.e., language styles or dialects that are associated with specific minoritized lived experiences (e.g., African American English, Queer slang). In this work, we examine whether sociolect usage by an LLM agent affects user reliance on its outputs and user perception (satisfaction, frustration, trust, and social presence). We designed and conducted user studies where 498 African American English (AAE) speakers and 487 Queer slang speakers performed a set of question-answering tasks with LLM-based suggestions in either standard American English (SAE) or their self-identified sociolect. Our findings showed that sociolect usage by LLMs influenced both reliance and perceptions, though in some surprising ways. Results suggest that both AAE and Queer slang speakers relied more on the SAE agent, and had more positive perceptions of the SAE agent. Yet, only Queer slang speakers felt more social presence from the Queer slang agent over the SAE one, whereas only AAE speakers preferred and trusted the SAE agent over the AAE one. These findings emphasize the need to test for behavioral outcomes rather than simply assume that personalization would lead to a better and safer reliance outcome. They also highlight the nuanced dynamics of minoritized language in machine interactions, underscoring the need for LLMs to be carefully designed to respect cultural and linguistic boundaries while fostering genuine user engagement and trust.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Rejected Dialects: Biases Against African American Language in Reward Models

Preference alignment via reward models helps build safe, helpful, and reliable large language models (LLMs). However, subjectivity in preference judgments and the lack of representative sampling in preference data collection can introduce new biases, hindering reward models' fairness and equity. In this work, we introduce a framework for evaluating dialect biases in reward models and conduct a case study on biases against African American Language (AAL) through several experiments comparing reward model preferences and behavior on paired White Mainstream English (WME) and both machine-translated and human-written AAL corpora. We show that reward models are less aligned with human preferences when processing AAL texts vs. WME ones (-4\% accuracy on average), frequently disprefer AAL-aligned texts vs. WME-aligned ones, and steer conversations toward WME, even when prompted with AAL texts. Our findings provide a targeted analysis of anti-AAL biases at a relatively understudied stage in LLM development, highlighting representational harms and ethical questions about the desired behavior of LLMs concerning AAL.

cs.CL↗