arXiv subjects

Renee Shelby

Publications and source records attributed to Renee Shelby.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

CompanionSim: Synthetic Data for Evaluating Anthropomorphism in Human-AI Relationships

Many people now see AI systems as not just productivity tools but as social companions. Researchers are eager to study the consequences of AI companionship behaviors, such as validation, which evoke trust, empathy, and attachment in human-human interaction. However, human-AI interaction data is limited and unreliable, slowing research progress. We scale small amounts of real-world data by simulating multi-turn human-chatbot dialogue across a range of chatbot behaviors and use cases. We release CompanionSim: a simulation framework with 2,240 simulated human-chatbot conversations representing 16 chatbot behaviors across seven use cases. Human participants annotated the simulated conversations and real-world conversations in two experiments probing perceptions of companionship behaviors. We conducted Study 1 with a U.S. representative sample ($N_{1}~=~628$) and Study 2 across the U.S., U.K., India, and Nigeria ($N_{2}~=~3,646$). Surprisingly, we find that companionship behaviors reduced likability, humanlikeness, and trust in AI chatbots. These effects were larger in particular subgroups: women and older participants saw companionship chatbots as less likable, humanlike, and trustworthy. We encourage researchers to leverage real-world and synthetic data together to study the differential impacts of AI companions and to create benchmark evaluations of AI chatbots.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

"Death by a thousand taxonomies?": AI Risk Classification In Practice

The harms in which AI is implicated range in nature and scope from unsafe user interactions through to the societal-wide consequences of AI adoption. Classification of the diverse risks of AI is foundational to AI governance: regulators, technology firms, and policymakers need structured accounts of risk upon which to act. Researchers and practitioners have accordingly developed many Sociotechnical Outcome Taxonomies (SOT). This paper presents an empirical study of SOT development and use, drawing on 25 interviews with researchers and practitioners across industry, academia, civil society, and government. We find SOT are weakly integrated into AI governance processes, and identify two features of SOT design and use that explain why. First, the design choices through which SOT produce structured representations of the complex problem space of AI risks tend to be invisible to downstream taxonomy users. Those users treat the resulting categories as exhaustive accounts of risk rather than as interpretive aids. Second, SOT typically enumerate harms without linking them to decision points or actors implicated in their occurrence, leaving accountability difficult to assign. We close with design recommendations for SOT developers and users, and argue realising the potential of SOT requires governance infrastructure that does not yet exist.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

"I want to be pushed, I want to grow": Enabling social workers to design evaluations of LLM augmentation in their work

Workers are increasingly asked to adopt AI systems to assist their work, yet are rarely given a voice in defining what meaningful AI augmentation should look like or how to evaluate for it. In this paper, we propose worker-driven AI measurement---a bottom-up approach to AI evaluation where workers collaboratively shape decisions about which tasks AI should augment, what "successful" augmentation looks like, and how it should be measured. We explore how to support this through a case study with 19 workers from a local school social work organization. Through a series of eight workshops, workers iteratively develop their own measurement goals for AI evaluation, systematize these goals, and then design a benchmark to capture how effectively an LLM can "challenge" them to reflect on their own assumptions and biases in the context of their day-to-day work. Workers collaboratively design and refine an LLM-as-a-judge rubric based on their professional and lived expertise. In validations of the worker-created benchmark, we find that there is strong agreement between worker and LLM judge ratings and that the resulting benchmark can differentiate performance across six state-of-the-art LLMs. Based on our case study, we discuss opportunities for future work to support worker-driven AI measurement as a complementary approach to existing top-down AI evaluation approaches.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

HelpBench: Assessing the Ability of LLMs to Provide Privacy, Safety, and Security Advice

This paper introduces HelpBench, a benchmark for assessing whether LLMs are capable of providing accurate help in response to questions about digital privacy, safety, and security. We curated 450 questions representing authentic user situations and developed rubrics for each question to evaluate the factual accuracy and tone of a response. Example questions touch on how to regain access to lost or suspended accounts, how to balance the trade-offs of hardware security keys versus other forms of two-factor authentication, whether a suspicious email is likely a scam, or whether an abuser might be able to track an individual based on their device peripherals. We then developed and applied an auto-rater to evaluate responses from 18 state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results indicate that while models provide high-quality advice (with scores of 82% on average), one in ten responses from models scores less than 65%, reflecting inaccurate and even harmful advice. Addressing these failures is critical for models to serve as trustworthy sources of assistance for digital privacy, safety, and security needs.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Quantifying the Statistical Effect of Rubric Modifications on Human-Autorater Agreement

Autoraters, also referred to as LLM-as-judges, are increasingly used for evaluation and automated content moderation. However, there is limited statistical analysis of how modifications in a rubric presented to both humans and autoraters affect their score agreement. Rubrics that ask for an overall or \emph{holistic} judgment - for example, rating the ``quality'' of an essay - may be inconsistently interpreted due to the complexity or subjectivity of the criteria. Conversely, rubrics can ask for \emph{analytic} judgments, which decompose assessment criteria - for example, ``quality'' into ``fluency'' and ``organization''. While these rubrics can be edited to improve the individual accuracy of both human and automated scoring, this approach may result in disagreement between the two scores, or with the associated holistic judgment. Designing and deploying reliable autoraters requires understanding not just the relationship between human and autorater annotations but how that relationship changes as holistic or analytic judgments are elicited. The results indicate that rubric edits providing representative examples and additional context, and reducing positional bias in the rubric increased human-autorater agreement, while higher rubric complexity and conservative aggregation methods tended to decrease it. The findings from the automatic essay scoring and instruction-following evaluation domains suggest that practitioners should carefully analyze domain- and rubric-specific performance to move towards higher human-autorater agreement.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

How Generative AI Empowers Attackers and Defenders Across the Trust & Safety Landscape

Generative AI (GenAI) is a powerful technology poised to reshape Trust & Safety. While misuse by attackers is a growing concern, its defensive capacity remains underexplored. This paper examines these effects through a qualitative study with 43 Trust & Safety experts across five domains: child safety, election integrity, hate and harassment, scams, and violent extremism. Our findings characterize a landscape in which GenAI empowers both attackers and defenders. GenAI dramatically increases the scale and speed of attacks, lowering the barrier to entry for creating harmful content, including sophisticated propaganda and deepfakes. Conversely, defenders envision leveraging GenAI to detect and mitigate harmful content at scale, conduct investigations, deploy persuasive counternarratives, improve moderator wellbeing, and offer user support. This work provides a strategic framework for understanding GenAI's impact on Trust & Safety and charts a path for its responsible use in creating safer online environments.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

A Unified Framework to Quantify Cultural Intelligence of AI

As generative AI technologies are increasingly being launched across the globe, assessing their competence to operate in different cultural contexts is exigently becoming a priority. While recent years have seen numerous and much-needed efforts on cultural benchmarking, these efforts have largely focused on specific aspects of culture and evaluation. While these efforts contribute to our understanding of cultural competence, a unified and systematic evaluation approach is needed for us as a field to comprehensively assess diverse cultural dimensions at scale. Drawing on measurement theory, we present a principled framework to aggregate multifaceted indicators of cultural capabilities into a unified assessment of cultural intelligence. We start by developing a working definition of culture that includes identifying core domains of culture. We then introduce a broad-purpose, systematic, and extensible framework for assessing cultural intelligence of AI systems. Drawing on theoretical framing from psychometric measurement validity theory, we decouple the background concept (i.e., cultural intelligence) from its operationalization via measurement. We conceptualize cultural intelligence as a suite of core capabilities spanning diverse domains, which we then operationalize through a set of indicators designed for reliable measurement. Finally, we identify the considerations, challenges, and research pathways to meaningfully measure these indicators, specifically focusing on data collection, probing strategies, and evaluation metrics.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

"It didn't feel right but I needed a job so desperately": Understanding People's Emotions & Help Needs During Financial Scams

Online financial scams represent a long-standing and serious threat for which people seek help. We present a study to understand people's in situ motivations for engaging with scams and the help needs they express before, during, and after encountering a scam. We identify the main emotions scammers exploited (e.g., fear, hope) and characterize how they did so. We examine factors -- such as financial insecurity and legal precarity -- which elevate people's risk of engaging with specific scams and experiencing harm. We indicate when people sought help and describe their help-seeking needs and emotions at different stages of the scam. We discuss how these needs could be met through the design of contextually-specific prevention, diagnostic, mitigation, and recovery interventions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Cultural Perspectives and Expectations for Generative AI: A Global Survey Approach

There is a lack of empirical evidence about global attitudes around whether and how GenAI should represent cultures. This paper assesses understandings and beliefs about culture as it relates to GenAI from a large-scale global survey. We gathered data about what culture means to different groups, and about how GenAI should approach the representation of cultural artifacts, concepts, or values. We distill working definitions of culture directly from these communities to build an understanding of its conceptual complexities and how they relate to representations in Generative AI. We survey from across parts of Europe, North and South America, Asia, and Africa. We conclude with a set of recommendations for Culture and GenAI development. These include participatory approaches, prioritizing specific cultural dimensions beyond geography, such as religion and tradition, and a sensitivity framework for addressing cultural ``redlines''.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

How Tech Workers Contend with Hazards of Humanlikeness in Generative AI

Generative AI's humanlike qualities are driving its rapid adoption in professional domains. However, this anthropomorphic appeal raises concerns from HCI and responsible AI scholars about potential hazards and harms, such as overtrust in system outputs. To investigate how technology workers navigate these humanlike qualities and anticipate emergent harms, we conducted focus groups with 30 professionals across six job functions (ML engineering, product policy, UX research and design, product management, technology writing, and communications). Our findings reveal an unsettled knowledge environment surrounding humanlike generative AI, where workers' varying perspectives illuminate a range of potential risks for individuals, knowledge work fields, and society. We argue that workers require comprehensive support, including clearer conceptions of ``humanlikeness'' to effectively mitigate these risks. To aid in mitigation strategies, we provide a conceptual map articulating the identified hazards and their connection to conflated notions of ``humanlikeness.''

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Measuring What Matters: Connecting AI Ethics Evaluations to System Attributes, Hazards, and Harms

Over the past decade, an ecosystem of measures has emerged to evaluate the social and ethical implications of AI systems, largely shaped by high-level ethics principles. These measures are developed and used in fragmented ways, without adequate attention to how they are situated in AI systems. In this paper, we examine how existing measures used in the computing literature map to AI system components, attributes, hazards, and harms. Our analysis draws on a scoping review resulting in nearly 800 measures corresponding to 11 AI ethics principles. We find that most measures focus on four principles - fairness, transparency, privacy, and trust - and primarily assess model or output system components. Few measures account for interactions across system elements, and only a narrow set of hazards is typically considered for each harm type. Many measures are disconnected from where harm is experienced and lack guidance for setting meaningful thresholds. These patterns reveal how current evaluation practices remain fragmented, measuring in pieces rather than capturing how harms emerge across systems. Framing measures with respect to system attributes, hazards, and harms can strengthen regulatory oversight, support actionable practices in industry, and ground future research in systems-level understanding.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Taxonomy of User Needs and Actions

The growing ubiquity of conversational AI highlights the need for frameworks that capture not only users' instrumental goals but also the situated, adaptive, and social practices through which they achieve them. Existing taxonomies of conversational behavior either overgeneralize, remain domain-specific, or reduce interactions to narrow dialogue functions. To address this gap, we introduce the Taxonomy of User Needs and Actions (TUNA), an empirically grounded framework developed through iterative qualitative analysis of 1193 human-AI conversations, supplemented by theoretical review and validation across diverse contexts. TUNA organizes user actions into a three-level hierarchy encompassing behaviors associated with information seeking, synthesis, procedural guidance, content creation, social interaction, and meta-conversation. By centering user agency and appropriation practices, TUNA enables multi-scale evaluation, supports policy harmonization across products, and provides a backbone for layering domain-specific taxonomies. This work contributes a systematic vocabulary for describing AI use, advancing both scholarly understanding and practical design of safer, more responsive, and more accountable conversational systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Debiasing Text Safety Classifiers through a Fairness-Aware Ensemble

Increasing use of large language models (LLMs) demand performant guardrails to ensure the safety of inputs and outputs of LLMs. When these safeguards are trained on imbalanced data, they can learn the societal biases. We present a light-weight, post-processing method for mitigating counterfactual fairness in closed-source text safety classifiers. Our approach involves building an ensemble that not only outperforms the input classifiers and policy-aligns them, but also acts as a debiasing regularizer. We introduce two threshold-agnostic metrics to assess the counterfactual fairness of a model, and demonstrate how combining these metrics with Fair Data Reweighting (FDW) helps mitigate biases. We create an expanded Open AI dataset, and a new templated LLM-generated dataset based on user-prompts, both of which are counterfactually balanced across identity groups and cover four key areas of safety; we will work towards publicly releasing these datasets. Our results show that our approach improves counterfactual fairness with minimal impact on model performance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Harm Amplification in Text-to-Image Models

Text-to-image (T2I) models have emerged as a significant advancement in generative AI; however, there exist safety concerns regarding their potential to produce harmful image outputs even when users input seemingly safe prompts. This phenomenon, where T2I models generate harmful representations that were not explicit in the input prompt, poses a potentially greater risk than adversarial prompts, leaving users unintentionally exposed to harms. Our paper addresses this issue by formalizing a definition for this phenomenon which we term harm amplification. We further contribute to the field by developing a framework of methodologies to quantify harm amplification in which we consider the harm of the model output in the context of user input. We then empirically examine how to apply these different methodologies to simulate real-world deployment scenarios including a quantification of disparate impacts across genders resulting from harm amplification. Together, our work aims to offer researchers tools to comprehensively address safety challenges in T2I systems and contribute to the responsible deployment of generative AI models.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Understanding Help-Seeking and Help-Giving on Social Media for Image-Based Sexual Abuse

Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA), like other forms of technology-facilitated abuse, is a growing threat to people's digital safety. Attacks include unwanted solicitations for sexually explicit images, extorting people under threat of leaking their images, or purposefully leaking images to enact revenge or exert control. In this paper, we explore how people seek and receive help for IBSA on social media. Specifically, we identify over 100,000 Reddit posts that engage relationship and advice communities for help related to IBSA. We draw on a stratified sample of 261 posts to qualitatively examine how various types of IBSA unfold, including the mapping of gender, relationship dynamics, and technology involvement to different types of IBSA. We also explore the support needs of victim-survivors experiencing IBSA and how communities help victim-survivors navigate their abuse through technical, emotional, and relationship advice. Finally, we highlight sociotechnical gaps in connecting victim-survivors with important care, regardless of whom they turn to for help.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants

This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, providing an overview of AI assistants, their technical foundations and potential range of applications. It then explores questions around AI value alignment, well-being, safety and malicious uses. Extending the circle of inquiry further, we next consider the relationship between advanced AI assistants and individual users in more detail, exploring topics such as manipulation and persuasion, anthropomorphism, appropriate relationships, trust and privacy. With this analysis in place, we consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants. Finally, we conclude by providing a range of recommendations for researchers, developers, policymakers and public stakeholders.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

How Knowledge Workers Think Generative AI Will (Not) Transform Their Industries

Generative AI is expected to have transformative effects in multiple knowledge industries. To better understand how knowledge workers expect generative AI may affect their industries in the future, we conducted participatory research workshops for seven different industries, with a total of 54 participants across three US cities. We describe participants' expectations of generative AI's impact, including a dominant narrative that cut across the groups' discourse: participants largely envision generative AI as a tool to perform menial work, under human review. Participants do not generally anticipate the disruptive changes to knowledge industries currently projected in common media and academic narratives. Participants do however envision generative AI may amplify four social forces currently shaping their industries: deskilling, dehumanization, disconnection, and disinformation. We describe these forces, and then we provide additional detail regarding attitudes in specific knowledge industries. We conclude with a discussion of implications and research challenges for the HCI community.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction

Understanding the landscape of potential harms from algorithmic systems enables practitioners to better anticipate consequences of the systems they build. It also supports the prospect of incorporating controls to help minimize harms that emerge from the interplay of technologies and social and cultural dynamics. A growing body of scholarship has identified a wide range of harms across different algorithmic technologies. However, computing research and practitioners lack a high level and synthesized overview of harms from algorithmic systems. Based on a scoping review of computing research $(n=172)$, we present an applied taxonomy of sociotechnical harms to support a more systematic surfacing of potential harms in algorithmic systems. The final taxonomy builds on and refers to existing taxonomies, classifications, and terminologies. Five major themes related to sociotechnical harms - representational, allocative, quality-of-service, interpersonal harms, and social system/societal harms - and sub-themes are presented along with a description of these categories. We conclude with a discussion of challenges and opportunities for future research.

cs.HC↗