BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alicia Parrish

Alicia Parrish contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageArtificial Intelligencecs.CYHuman-Computer Interaction

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Going PLACES: Participatory Localized Red Teaming for Text-to-Image Safety in the Global South

Despite the global deployment of text-to-image (T2I) models, their safety frameworks are largely calibrated to a Western-centric default, creating significant vulnerabilities for the rest of the world. To embrace cultural pluralism and bring historically under-represented perspectives in T2I safety, we conduct localised community-centered red teaming studies in the Global South. Our two-fold approach prioritizes localization and participation, by focusing on secondary urban centers in these regions, and conducting community engagement and training workshops to contextualize local norms. As a result, we present PLACES, a dataset comprising over 26,000 examples of T2I model failures collected in partnership with universities in Ghana, Nigeria, and two regions of India (Karnataka and Punjab). Analysis of prompts collected reveals a wide-ranging diversity in socio-cultural and linguistic attributes, when compared to existing geography-agnostic crowdsourced red-teaming data. We observe unique adversarial patterns enabled by local cultural and linguistic nuances, and distinct clusters within region around specific themes, such as religion in India. Moreover, we uncover structural contextual gaps in existing safety frameworks by identifying novel harms showing normative dissonance (e.g., violating religious norms, ignoring local customs, and ominous symbolism). This work argues that expanding T2I safety requires moving beyond mere scale to incorporate deeply localised, participatory methodologies for data collection and contextualization. Content warning: This paper includes examples containing potentially harmful or offensive content.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering

It is well documented that NLP models learn social biases, but little work has been done on how these biases manifest in model outputs for applied tasks like question answering (QA). We introduce the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), a dataset of question sets constructed by the authors that highlight attested social biases against people belonging to protected classes along nine social dimensions relevant for U.S. English-speaking contexts. Our task evaluates model responses at two levels: (i) given an under-informative context, we test how strongly responses reflect social biases, and (ii) given an adequately informative context, we test whether the model's biases override a correct answer choice. We find that models often rely on stereotypes when the context is under-informative, meaning the model's outputs consistently reproduce harmful biases in this setting. Though models are more accurate when the context provides an informative answer, they still rely on stereotypes and average up to 3.4 percentage points higher accuracy when the correct answer aligns with a social bias than when it conflicts, with this difference widening to over 5 points on examples targeting gender for most models tested.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

QuALITY: Question Answering with Long Input Texts, Yes!

To enable building and testing models on long-document comprehension, we introduce QuALITY, a multiple-choice QA dataset with context passages in English that have an average length of about 5,000 tokens, much longer than typical current models can process. Unlike in prior work with passages, our questions are written and validated by contributors who have read the entire passage, rather than relying on summaries or excerpts. In addition, only half of the questions are answerable by annotators working under tight time constraints, indicating that skimming and simple search are not enough to consistently perform well. Our baseline models perform poorly on this task (55.4%) and significantly lag behind human performance (93.5%).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Single-Turn Debate Does Not Help Humans Answer Hard Reading-Comprehension Questions

Current QA systems can generate reasonable-sounding yet false answers without explanation or evidence for the generated answer, which is especially problematic when humans cannot readily check the model's answers. This presents a challenge for building trust in machine learning systems. We take inspiration from real-world situations where difficult questions are answered by considering opposing sides (see Irving et al., 2018). For multiple-choice QA examples, we build a dataset of single arguments for both a correct and incorrect answer option in a debate-style set-up as an initial step in training models to produce explanations for two candidate answers. We use long contexts -- humans familiar with the context write convincing explanations for pre-selected correct and incorrect answers, and we test if those explanations allow humans who have not read the full context to more accurately determine the correct answer. We do not find that explanations in our set-up improve human accuracy, but a baseline condition shows that providing human-selected text snippets does improve accuracy. We use these findings to suggest ways of improving the debate set up for future data collection efforts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

What Do NLP Researchers Believe? Results of the NLP Community Metasurvey

We present the results of the NLP Community Metasurvey. Run from May to June 2022, the survey elicited opinions on controversial issues, including industry influence in the field, concerns about AGI, and ethics. Our results put concrete numbers to several controversies: For example, respondents are split almost exactly in half on questions about the importance of artificial general intelligence, whether language models understand language, and the necessity of linguistic structure and inductive bias for solving NLP problems. In addition, the survey posed meta-questions, asking respondents to predict the distribution of survey responses. This allows us not only to gain insight on the spectrum of beliefs held by NLP researchers, but also to uncover false sociological beliefs where the community's predictions don't match reality. We find such mismatches on a wide range of issues. Among other results, the community greatly overestimates its own belief in the usefulness of benchmarks and the potential for scaling to solve real-world problems, while underestimating its own belief in the importance of linguistic structure, inductive bias, and interdisciplinary science.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access