arXiv subjects

Tatiana Chakravorti

Publications and source records attributed to Tatiana Chakravorti.

11 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Human-AI Collaboration for Estimating Scientific Replicability

Determining whether published scientific findings can successfully be replicated is a long-standing challenge in the empirical sciences. Existing approaches for replicability assessment typically rely either on human judgment, i.e., creative assembly of human experts, or on machine learning models trained on paper content metadata. While both approaches have demonstrated value, each also has important limitations. Human forecasts can be influenced by cognitive biases and narrow exposure to the research literature, while automated assessments often struggle to capture contextual cues and subtle signals of credibility. In this paper, we examine a hybrid approach. Specifically, we introduce a hybrid prediction market in which algorithmic agents trade alongside human participants to jointly estimate the likelihood that a published scientific finding will be corroborated via the outcome of a controlled replication study. Agents are trained on outcomes from hundreds of prior replication studies while human participants contribute domain knowledge through real-time trading. We evaluate this hybrid approach through multiple live experiments involving participants from different academic disciplines and compare its performance to artificial-only and human-only baselines. Our results show that, except for a few cases, hybrid markets match or outperform artificial prediction markets, producing more accurate and reliable replication forecasts.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Detection: Governing GenAI in Academic Peer Review as a Sociotechnical Challenge

Generative AI tools are increasingly entering academic peer review workflows, raising questions about fairness, accountability, and the legitimacy of evaluative judgment. While these systems promise efficiency gains amid growing reviewer overload, their use introduces new sociotechnical risks. This paper presents a convergent mixed-method study combining discourse analysis of 448 social media posts with interviews with 14 area chairs and program chairs from leading AI and HCI conferences to examine how GenAI is discussed and experienced in peer review. Across both datasets, we find broad agreement that GenAI may be acceptable for limited supportive tasks, such as improving clarity or structuring feedback, but that core evaluative judgments, assessing novelty, contribution, and acceptance, should remain human responsibilities. At the same time, participants highlight concerns about epistemic harm, over-standardization, unclear responsibility, and adversarial risks such as prompt injection. User interviews reveal how structural strain and institutional policy ambiguity shift interpretive and enforcement burdens onto individual scholars, disproportionately affecting junior authors and reviewers. By triangulating public governance discourse with lived review practices, this work reframes AI mediated peer review as a sociotechnical governance challenge and offers recommendations for preserving accountability, trust, and meaningful human oversight. Overall, we argue that AI-assisted peer review is best governed not by blanket bans or detection alone, but by explicitly reserving evaluative judgment for humans while instituting enforceable, role-specific controls that preserve accountability. We conclude with role specific recommendations that formalize the support judgment boundary.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Towards Experience-Centered AI: A Framework for Integrating Lived Experience in Design and Development

Lived experiences fundamentally shape how individuals interact with AI systems, influencing perceptions of safety, trust, and usability. While prior research has focused on developing techniques to emulate human preferences, and proposed taxonomies to categorize risks (such as psychological harms and algorithmic biases), these efforts have provided limited systematic understanding of lived human experiences or actionable strategies for embedding them meaningfully into the AI development lifecycle. This work proposes a framework for meaningfully integrating lived experience into the design and evaluation of AI systems. We synthesize interdisciplinary literature across lived experience philosophy, human-centered design, and human-AI interaction, arguing that centering lived experience can lead to models that more accurately reflect the retrospective, emotional, and contextual dimensions of human cognition. Drawing from a wide body of work across psychology, education, healthcare, and social policy, we present a targeted taxonomy of lived experiences with specific applicability to AI systems. To ground our framework, we examine three application domains (i) education, (ii) healthcare, and (iii) cultural alignment, illustrating how lived experience informs user goals, system expectations, and ethical considerations in each context. We further incorporate insights from AI system operators and human-AI partnerships to highlight challenges in responsibility allocation, mental model calibration, and long-term system adaptation. We conclude with actionable recommendations for developing experience-centered AI systems that are not only technically robust but also empathetic, context-aware, and aligned with human realities. This work offers a foundation for future research that bridges technical development with the lived experiences of those impacted by AI systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Embracing Transparency: A Study of Open Science Practices Among Early Career HCI Researchers

Many fields of science, including Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), have heightened introspection in the wake of concerns around reproducibility and replicability of published findings. Notably, in recent years the HCI community has worked to implement policy changes and mainstream open science practices. Our work investigates early-career HCI researchers' perceptions of open science and engagement with best practices through 18 semi-structured interviews. Our findings highlight key barriers to the widespread adoption of data and materials sharing, and preregistration, namely: lack of clear incentives; cultural resistance; limited training; time constraints; concerns about intellectual property; and data privacy issues. We observe that small changes at major conferences like CHI could meaningfully impact community norms. We offer recommendations to address these barriers and to promote transparency and openness in HCI. While these findings provide valuable and interesting insights about the open science practices by early career HCI researchers, their applicability is limited to the USA only. The interview study relies on self-reported data; therefore, it can be subject to biases like recall bias. Future studies will include the scope to expand HCI researchers from different levels of experience and different countries, allowing for more justifiable examples.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Social Scientists on the Role of AI in Research

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into social science research practices raises significant technological, methodological, and ethical issues. We present a community-centric study drawing on 284 survey responses and 15 semi-structured interviews with social scientists, describing their familiarity with, perceptions of the usefulness of, and ethical concerns about the use of AI in their field. A crucial innovation in study design is to split our survey sample in half, providing the same questions to each -- but randomizing whether participants were asked about "AI" or "Machine Learning" (ML). We find that the use of AI in research settings has increased significantly among social scientists in step with the widespread popularity of generative AI (genAI). These tools have been used for a range of tasks, from summarizing literature reviews to drafting research papers. Some respondents used these tools out of curiosity but were dissatisfied with the results, while others have now integrated them into their typical workflows. Participants, however, also reported concerns with the use of AI in research contexts. This is a departure from more traditional ML algorithms which they view as statistically grounded. Participants express greater trust in ML, citing its relative transparency compared to black-box genAI systems. Ethical concerns, particularly around automation bias, deskilling, research misconduct, complex interpretability, and representational harm, are raised in relation to genAI. To guide this transition, we offer recommendations for AI developers, researchers, educators, and policymakers focusing on explainability, transparency, ethical safeguards, sustainability, and the integration of lived experiences into AI design and evaluation processes.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Perspectives from India: Opportunities and Challenges for AI Replication Prediction to Improve Confidence in Published Research

Over the past decade, a crisis of confidence in scientific literature has gained attention, particularly in the West. In response, we have seen changes in policy and practice amongst individual researchers and institutions. Greater attention is given to the transparency of workflows and the appropriate use of statistical methods. Advances in scholarly big data and machine learning have led to the development of AI-driven tools for the evaluation of published findings. In this study, we conduct 19 semi-structured interviews with Indian researchers to understand their perspectives on challenges and opportunities for AI technologies to improve confidence in published research. Our findings highlight the importance of social and cultural context for the design and deployment of AI tools for research assessment. Our work suggests that such technologies must work alongside rather than replace human research assessment mechanisms. They must be explainable and situated within well-functioning human-centered peer review processes.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

An Audit on the Perspectives and Challenges of Hallucinations in NLP

We audit how hallucination in large language models (LLMs) is characterized in peer-reviewed literature, using a critical examination of 103 publications across NLP research. Through the examination of the literature, we identify a lack of agreement with the term `hallucination' in the field of NLP. Additionally, to compliment our audit, we conduct a survey with 171 practitioners from the field of NLP and AI to capture varying perspectives on hallucination. Our analysis calls for the necessity of explicit definitions and frameworks outlining hallucination within NLP, highlighting potential challenges, and our survey inputs provide a thematic understanding of the influence and ramifications of hallucination in society.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Integrating measures of replicability into scholarly search: Challenges and opportunities

Challenges to reproducibility and replicability have gained widespread attention, driven by large replication projects with lukewarm success rates. A nascent work has emerged developing algorithms to estimate the replicability of published findings. The current study explores ways in which AI-enabled signals of confidence in research might be integrated into the literature search. We interview 17 PhD researchers about their current processes for literature search and ask them to provide feedback on a replicability estimation tool. Our findings suggest that participants tend to confuse replicability with generalizability and related concepts. Information about replicability can support researchers throughout the research design processes. However, the use of AI estimation is debatable due to the lack of explainability and transparency. The ethical implications of AI-enabled confidence assessment must be further studied before such tools could be widely accepted. We discuss implications for the design of technological tools to support scholarly activities and advance replicability.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Reproducibility, Replicability, and Transparency in Research: What 430 Professors Think in Universities across the USA and India

In the past decade, open science and science of science communities have initiated innovative efforts to address concerns about the reproducibility and replicability of published scientific research. In some respects, these efforts have been successful, yet there are still many pockets of researchers with little to no familiarity with these concerns, subsequent responses, or best practices for engaging in reproducible, replicable, and reliable scholarship. In this work, we survey 430 professors from Universities across the USA and India to understand perspectives on scientific processes and identify key points for intervention. Our findings reveal both national and disciplinary gaps in attention to reproducibility and replicability, aggravated by incentive misalignment and resource constraints. We suggest that solutions addressing scientific integrity should be culturally-centered, where definitions of culture should include both regional and domain-specific elements.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

A prototype hybrid prediction market for estimating replicability of published work

We present a prototype hybrid prediction market and demonstrate the avenue it represents for meaningful human-AI collaboration. We build on prior work proposing artificial prediction markets as a novel machine-learning algorithm. In an artificial prediction market, trained AI agents buy and sell outcomes of future events. Classification decisions can be framed as outcomes of future events, and accordingly, the price of an asset corresponding to a given classification outcome can be taken as a proxy for the confidence of the system in that decision. By embedding human participants in these markets alongside bot traders, we can bring together insights from both. In this paper, we detail pilot studies with prototype hybrid markets for the prediction of replication study outcomes. We highlight challenges and opportunities, share insights from semi-structured interviews with hybrid market participants, and outline a vision for ongoing and future work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Artificial prediction markets present a novel opportunity for human-AI collaboration

Despite high-profile successes in the field of Artificial Intelligence, machine-driven technologies still suffer important limitations, particularly for complex tasks where creativity, planning, common sense, intuition, or learning from limited data is required. These limitations motivate effective methods for human-machine collaboration. Our work makes two primary contributions. We thoroughly experiment with an artificial prediction market model to understand the effects of market parameters on model performance for benchmark classification tasks. We then demonstrate, through simulation, the impact of exogenous agents in the market, where these exogenous agents represent primitive human behaviors. This work lays the foundation for a novel set of hybrid human-AI machine learning algorithms.

cs.IT↗