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

Maria De-Arteaga

Maria De-Arteaga contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYArtificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer InteractionMachine Learning

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)

preprint2022arXiv

Justice in Misinformation Detection Systems: An Analysis of Algorithms, Stakeholders, and Potential Harms

Faced with the scale and surge of misinformation on social media, many platforms and fact-checking organizations have turned to algorithms for automating key parts of misinformation detection pipelines. While offering a promising solution to the challenge of scale, the ethical and societal risks associated with algorithmic misinformation detection are not well-understood. In this paper, we employ and extend upon the notion of informational justice to develop a framework for explicating issues of justice relating to representation, participation, distribution of benefits and burdens, and credibility in the misinformation detection pipeline. Drawing on the framework: (1) we show how injustices materialize for stakeholders across three algorithmic stages in the pipeline; (2) we suggest empirical measures for assessing these injustices; and (3) we identify potential sources of these harms. This framework should help researchers, policymakers, and practitioners reason about potential harms or risks associated with these algorithms and provide conceptual guidance for the design of algorithmic fairness audits in this domain.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the Relationship Between Explanations, Fairness Perceptions, and Decisions

It is known that recommendations of AI-based systems can be incorrect or unfair. Hence, it is often proposed that a human be the final decision-maker. Prior work has argued that explanations are an essential pathway to help human decision-makers enhance decision quality and mitigate bias, i.e., facilitate human-AI complementarity. For these benefits to materialize, explanations should enable humans to appropriately rely on AI recommendations and override the algorithmic recommendation when necessary to increase distributive fairness of decisions. The literature, however, does not provide conclusive empirical evidence as to whether explanations enable such complementarity in practice. In this work, we (a) provide a conceptual framework to articulate the relationships between explanations, fairness perceptions, reliance, and distributive fairness, (b) apply it to understand (seemingly) contradictory research findings at the intersection of explanations and fairness, and (c) derive cohesive implications for the formulation of research questions and the design of experiments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

The effect of differential victim crime reporting on predictive policing systems

Police departments around the world have been experimenting with forms of place-based data-driven proactive policing for over two decades. Modern incarnations of such systems are commonly known as hot spot predictive policing. These systems predict where future crime is likely to concentrate such that police can allocate patrols to these areas and deter crime before it occurs. Previous research on fairness in predictive policing has concentrated on the feedback loops which occur when models are trained on discovered crime data, but has limited implications for models trained on victim crime reporting data. We demonstrate how differential victim crime reporting rates across geographical areas can lead to outcome disparities in common crime hot spot prediction models. Our analysis is based on a simulation patterned after district-level victimization and crime reporting survey data for Bogotá, Colombia. Our results suggest that differential crime reporting rates can lead to a displacement of predicted hotspots from high crime but low reporting areas to high or medium crime and high reporting areas. This may lead to misallocations both in the form of over-policing and under-policing.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores

The increased use of algorithmic predictions in sensitive domains has been accompanied by both enthusiasm and concern. To understand the opportunities and risks of these technologies, it is key to study how experts alter their decisions when using such tools. In this paper, we study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We focus on the question: Are humans capable of identifying cases in which the machine is wrong, and of overriding those recommendations? We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. Then, we show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk, even when overriding the recommendation requires supervisory approval. These results highlight the risks of full automation and the importance of designing decision pipelines that provide humans with autonomy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access