arXiv subjects

Marios Constantinides

Publications and source records attributed to Marios Constantinides.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2024

The Atlas of AI Incidents in Mobile Computing: Visualizing the Risks and Benefits of AI Gone Mobile

Today's visualization tools for conveying the risks and benefits of AI technologies are largely tailored for those with technical expertise. To bridge this gap, we have developed a visualization that employs narrative patterns and interactive elements, enabling the broader public to gradually grasp the diverse risks and benefits associated with AI. Using a dataset of 54 real-world incidents involving AI in mobile computing, we examined design choices that enhance public understanding and provoke reflection on how certain AI applications - even those deemed low-risk by law - can still lead to significant incidents. Visualization: https://social-dynamics.net/mobile-ai-risks

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

WEIRD ICWSM: How Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic is Social Computing Research?

Much of the research in social computing analyzes data from social media platforms, which may inherently carry biases. An overlooked source of such bias is the over-representation of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) populations, which might not accurately mirror the global demographic diversity. We evaluated the dependence on WEIRD populations in research presented at the AAAI ICWSM conference; the only venue whose proceedings are fully dedicated to social computing research. We did so by analyzing 494 papers published from 2018 to 2022, which included full research papers, dataset papers and posters. After filtering out papers that analyze synthetic datasets or those lacking clear country of origin, we were left with 420 papers from which 188 participants in a crowdsourcing study with full manual validation extracted data for the WEIRD scores computation. This data was then used to adapt existing WEIRD metrics to be applicable for social media data. We found that 37% of these papers focused solely on data from Western countries. This percentage is significantly less than the percentages observed in research from CHI (76%) and FAccT (84%) conferences, suggesting a greater diversity of dataset origins within ICWSM. However, the studies at ICWSM still predominantly examine populations from countries that are more Educated, Industrialized, and Rich in comparison to those in FAccT, with a special note on the 'Democratic' variable reflecting political freedoms and rights. This points out the utility of social media data in shedding light on findings from countries with restricted political freedoms. Based on these insights, we recommend extensions of current "paper checklists" to include considerations about the WEIRD bias and call for the community to broaden research inclusivity by encouraging the use of diverse datasets from underrepresented regions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

RAI Guidelines: Method for Generating Responsible AI Guidelines Grounded in Regulations and Usable by (Non-)Technical Roles

Many guidelines for responsible AI have been suggested to help AI practitioners in the development of ethical and responsible AI systems. However, these guidelines are often neither grounded in regulation nor usable by different roles, from developers to decision makers. To bridge this gap, we developed a four-step method to generate a list of responsible AI guidelines; these steps are: (1) manual coding of 17 papers on responsible AI; (2) compiling an initial catalog of responsible AI guidelines; (3) refining the catalog through interviews and expert panels; and (4) finalizing the catalog. To evaluate the resulting 22 guidelines, we incorporated them into an interactive tool and assessed them in a user study with 14 AI researchers, engineers, designers, and managers from a large technology company. Through interviews with these practitioners, we found that the guidelines were grounded in current regulations and usable across roles, encouraging self-reflection on ethical considerations at early stages of development. This significantly contributes to the concept of `Responsible AI by Design' -- a design-first approach that embeds responsible AI values throughout the development lifecycle and across various business roles.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Using Self-supervised Learning Can Improve Model Fairness

Self-supervised learning (SSL) has become the de facto training paradigm of large models, where pre-training is followed by supervised fine-tuning using domain-specific data and labels. Despite demonstrating comparable performance with supervised methods, comprehensive efforts to assess SSL's impact on machine learning fairness (i.e., performing equally on different demographic breakdowns) are lacking. Hypothesizing that SSL models would learn more generic, hence less biased representations, this study explores the impact of pre-training and fine-tuning strategies on fairness. We introduce a fairness assessment framework for SSL, comprising five stages: defining dataset requirements, pre-training, fine-tuning with gradual unfreezing, assessing representation similarity conditioned on demographics, and establishing domain-specific evaluation processes. We evaluate our method's generalizability on three real-world human-centric datasets (i.e., MIMIC, MESA, and GLOBEM) by systematically comparing hundreds of SSL and fine-tuned models on various dimensions spanning from the intermediate representations to appropriate evaluation metrics. Our findings demonstrate that SSL can significantly improve model fairness, while maintaining performance on par with supervised methods-exhibiting up to a 30% increase in fairness with minimal loss in performance through self-supervision. We posit that such differences can be attributed to representation dissimilarities found between the best- and the worst-performing demographics across models-up to x13 greater for protected attributes with larger performance discrepancies between segments.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

User Characteristics in Explainable AI: The Rabbit Hole of Personalization?

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes ubiquitous, the need for Explainable AI (XAI) has become critical for transparency and trust among users. A significant challenge in XAI is catering to diverse users, such as data scientists, domain experts, and end-users. Recent research has started to investigate how users' characteristics impact interactions with and user experience of explanations, with a view to personalizing XAI. However, are we heading down a rabbit hole by focusing on unimportant details? Our research aimed to investigate how user characteristics are related to using, understanding, and trusting an AI system that provides explanations. Our empirical study with 149 participants who interacted with an XAI system that flagged inappropriate comments showed that very few user characteristics mattered; only age and the personality trait openness influenced actual understanding. Our work provides evidence to reorient user-focused XAI research and question the pursuit of personalized XAI based on fine-grained user characteristics.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Guidelines for Integrating Value Sensitive Design in Responsible AI Toolkits

Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is a framework for integrating human values throughout the technology design process. In parallel, Responsible AI (RAI) advocates for the development of systems aligning with ethical values, such as fairness and transparency. In this study, we posit that a VSD approach is not only compatible, but also advantageous to the development of RAI toolkits. To empirically assess this hypothesis, we conducted four workshops involving 17 early-career AI researchers. Our aim was to establish links between VSD and RAI values while examining how existing toolkits incorporate VSD principles in their design. Our findings show that collaborative and educational design features within these toolkits, including illustrative examples and open-ended cues, facilitate an understanding of human and ethical values, and empower researchers to incorporate values into AI systems. Drawing on these insights, we formulated six design guidelines for integrating VSD values into the development of RAI toolkits.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Implications of Regulations on the Use of AI and Generative AI for Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence

With the upcoming AI regulations (e.g., EU AI Act) and rapid advancements in generative AI, new challenges emerge in the area of Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence (HCR-AI). As AI becomes more ubiquitous, questions around decision-making authority, human oversight, accountability, sustainability, and the ethical and legal responsibilities of AI and their creators become paramount. Addressing these questions requires a collaborative approach. By involving stakeholders from various disciplines in the 2\textsuperscript{nd} edition of the HCR-AI Special Interest Group (SIG) at CHI 2024, we aim to discuss the implications of regulations in HCI research, develop new theories, evaluation frameworks, and methods to navigate the complex nature of AI ethics, steering AI development in a direction that is beneficial and sustainable for all of humanity.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Evaluating Fairness in Self-supervised and Supervised Models for Sequential Data

Self-supervised learning (SSL) has become the de facto training paradigm of large models where pre-training is followed by supervised fine-tuning using domain-specific data and labels. Hypothesizing that SSL models would learn more generic, hence less biased, representations, this study explores the impact of pre-training and fine-tuning strategies on fairness (i.e., performing equally on different demographic breakdowns). Motivated by human-centric applications on real-world timeseries data, we interpret inductive biases on the model, layer, and metric levels by systematically comparing SSL models to their supervised counterparts. Our findings demonstrate that SSL has the capacity to achieve performance on par with supervised methods while significantly enhancing fairness--exhibiting up to a 27% increase in fairness with a mere 1% loss in performance through self-supervision. Ultimately, this work underscores SSL's potential in human-centric computing, particularly high-stakes, data-scarce application domains like healthcare.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

FairComp: Workshop on Fairness and Robustness in Machine Learning for Ubiquitous Computing

How can we ensure that Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) research outcomes are both ethical and fair? While fairness in machine learning (ML) has gained traction in recent years, fairness in UbiComp remains unexplored. This workshop aims to discuss fairness in UbiComp research and its social, technical, and legal implications. From a social perspective, we will examine the relationship between fairness and UbiComp research and identify pathways to ensure that ubiquitous technologies do not cause harm or infringe on individual rights. From a technical perspective, we will initiate a discussion on data practices to develop bias mitigation approaches tailored to UbiComp research. From a legal perspective, we will examine how new policies shape our community's work and future research. We aim to foster a vibrant community centered around the topic of responsible UbiComp, while also charting a clear path for future research endeavours in this field.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Our Nudges, Our Selves: Tailoring Mobile User Engagement Using Personality

To increase mobile user engagement, current apps employ a variety of behavioral nudges, but these engagement techniques are applied in a one-size-fits-all approach. Yet the very same techniques may be perceived differently by different individuals. To test this, we developed HarrySpotter, a location-based AR app that embedded six engagement techniques. We deployed it in a 2-week study involving 29 users who also took the Big-Five personality test. Preferences for specific engagement techniques are not only descriptive but also predictive of personality traits. The Adj. $R^2$ ranges from 0.16 for conscientious users (encouraged by competition) to 0.32 for neurotic users (self-centered and focused on their own achievements), and even up to 0.61 for extroverts (motivated by both exploration of objects and places). These findings suggest that these techniques need to be personalized in the future.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

The State of Algorithmic Fairness in Mobile Human-Computer Interaction

This paper explores the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) fairness and mobile human-computer interaction (MobileHCI). Through a comprehensive analysis of MobileHCI proceedings published between 2017 and 2022, we first aim to understand the current state of algorithmic fairness in the community. By manually analyzing 90 papers, we found that only a small portion (5%) thereof adheres to modern fairness reporting, such as analyses conditioned on demographic breakdowns. At the same time, the overwhelming majority draws its findings from highly-educated, employed, and Western populations. We situate these findings within recent efforts to capture the current state of algorithmic fairness in mobile and wearable computing, and envision that our results will serve as an open invitation to the design and development of fairer ubiquitous technologies.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

A Systematic Literature Review of Human-Centered, Ethical, and Responsible AI

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to advance rapidly, it becomes increasingly important to consider AI's ethical and societal implications. In this paper, we present a bottom-up mapping of the current state of research at the intersection of Human-Centered AI, Ethical, and Responsible AI (HCER-AI) by thematically reviewing and analyzing 164 research papers from leading conferences in ethical, social, and human factors of AI: AIES, CHI, CSCW, and FAccT. The ongoing research in HCER-AI places emphasis on governance, fairness, and explainability. These conferences, however, concentrate on specific themes rather than encompassing all aspects. While AIES has fewer papers on HCER-AI, it emphasizes governance and rarely publishes papers about privacy, security, and human flourishing. FAccT publishes more on governance and lacks papers on privacy, security, and human flourishing. CHI and CSCW, as more established conferences, have a broader research portfolio. We find that the current emphasis on governance and fairness in AI research may not adequately address the potential unforeseen and unknown implications of AI. Therefore, we recommend that future research should expand its scope and diversify resources to prepare for these potential consequences. This could involve exploring additional areas such as privacy, security, human flourishing, and explainability.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

WEIRD FAccTs: How Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic is FAccT?

Studies conducted on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples are considered atypical of the world's population and may not accurately represent human behavior. In this study, we aim to quantify the extent to which the ACM FAccT conference, the leading venue in exploring Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems' fairness, accountability, and transparency, relies on WEIRD samples. We collected and analyzed 128 papers published between 2018 and 2022, accounting for 30.8% of the overall proceedings published at FAccT in those years (excluding abstracts, tutorials, and papers without human-subject studies or clear country attribution for the participants). We found that 84% of the analyzed papers were exclusively based on participants from Western countries, particularly exclusively from the U.S. (63%). Only researchers who undertook the effort to collect data about local participants through interviews or surveys added diversity to an otherwise U.S.-centric view of science. Therefore, we suggest that researchers collect data from under-represented populations to obtain an inclusive worldview. To achieve this goal, scientific communities should champion data collection from such populations and enforce transparent reporting of data biases.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Current & Future Trends

In recent years, the CHI community has seen significant growth in research on Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence. While different research communities may use different terminology to discuss similar topics, all of this work is ultimately aimed at developing AI that benefits humanity while being grounded in human rights and ethics, and reducing the potential harms of AI. In this special interest group, we aim to bring together researchers from academia and industry interested in these topics to map current and future research trends to advance this important area of research by fostering collaboration and sharing ideas.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Quantified Canine: Inferring Dog Personality From Wearables

Being able to assess dog personality can be used to, for example, match shelter dogs with future owners, and personalize dog activities. Such an assessment typically relies on experts or psychological scales administered to dog owners, both of which are costly. To tackle that challenge, we built a device called "Patchkeeper" that can be strapped on the pet's chest and measures activity through an accelerometer and a gyroscope. In an in-the-wild deployment involving 12 healthy dogs, we collected 1300 hours of sensor activity data and dog personality test results from two validated questionnaires. By matching these two datasets, we trained ten machine-learning classifiers that predicted dog personality from activity data, achieving AUCs in [0.63-0.90], suggesting the value of tracking the psychological signals of pets using wearable technologies.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Pressure Test: Quantifying the impact of positive stress on companies from online employee reviews

Workplace stress is often considered to be negative, yet lab studies on individuals suggest that not all stress is bad. There are two types of stress: distress refers to harmful stimuli, while eustress refers to healthy, euphoric stimuli that create a sense of fulfillment and achievement. Telling the two types of stress apart is challenging, let alone quantifying their impact across corporations. By leveraging a dataset of 440K reviews about S&P 500 companies published during twelve successive years, we developed a deep learning framework to extract stress mentions from these reviews. We proposed a new methodology that places each company on a stress-by-rating quadrant (based on its overall stress score and overall rating on the site), and accordingly scores the company to be, on average, either a low stress}, passive, negative stress, or positive stress company. We found that (former) employees of positive stress companies tended to describe high-growth and collaborative workplaces in their reviews, and that such companies' stock evaluations grew, on average, 5.1 times in 10 years (2009-2019) as opposed to the companies of the other three stress types that grew, on average, 3.7 times in the same time period. We also found that the four stress scores aggregated every year -- from 2008 to 2020 -- closely followed the unemployment rate in the U.S.: a year of positive stress (2008) was rapidly followed by several years of negative stress (2009-2015), which peaked during the Great Recession (2009-2011). These results suggest that automated analyses of the language used by employees on corporate social-networking tools offer yet another way of tracking workplace stress, allowing quantification of its impact on corporations.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2022

Good Intentions, Bad Inventions: How Employees Judge Pervasive Technologies in the Workplace

Pervasive technologies combined with powerful AI have been recently introduced to enhance work productivity. Yet, some of these technologies are judged to be invasive. To identify which ones, we should understand how employees tend to judge these technologies. We considered 16 technologies that track productivity, and conducted a study in which 131 crowd-workers judged these scenarios. We found that a technology was judged to be right depending on the following three aspects of increasing importance. That is, whether the technology: 1) was currently supported by existing tools; 2) did not interfere with work or was fit for purpose; and 3) did not cause any harm or did not infringe on any individual rights. Ubicomp research currently focuses on how to design better technologies by making them more accurate, or by increasingly blending them into the background. It might be time to design better ubiquitous technologies by unpacking AI ethics as well.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

The Future of Hybrid Meetings

Meetings are typically considered to be the fuel of an organization's productivity -- a place where employees discuss ideas and make collective decisions. However, it is no secret that meetings are also often perceived as wasteful vacuums, depleting employee morale and productivity, likely due to the fact that current technologies fall short in fully supporting physical or virtual meeting experience. In this position paper, we discuss the three key elements that make a meeting successful (i.e., execution, psychological safety, and physical comfort), and present new tools for hybrid meetings that incorporate those elements. As past research has focused on supporting meeting execution (the first element), we set the roadmap for future research on the two other elements: on psychological safety by articulating how new technologies could make meeting useful for all participants, ensure all participants give and receive appropriate levels of attention, and enable all participants to feel and make others feel comfortable; and on physical comfort by dwelling on how new technologies could make the meeting experience comfortable by integrating all human senses. We also discuss the potential danger of these technologies inadvertently becoming surveillance tools.

cs.HC↗