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

Verena Rieser

Verena Rieser contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceComputation and LanguageComputer Visioncs.CYMachine LearningHuman-Computer InteractionMultimediaNeurons and Cognition

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
8topics
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

7 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Can AI mediation improve democratic deliberation?

The strength of democracy lies in the free and equal exchange of diverse viewpoints. Living up to this ideal at scale faces inherent tensions: broad participation, meaningful deliberation, and political equality often trade off with one another (Fishkin, 2011). We ask whether and how artificial intelligence (AI) could help navigate this "trilemma" by engaging with a recent example of a large language model (LLM)-based system designed to help people with diverse viewpoints find common ground (Tessler, Bakker, et al., 2024). Here, we explore the implications of the introduction of LLMs into deliberation augmentation tools, examining their potential to enhance participation through scalability, improve political equality via fair mediation, and foster meaningful deliberation by, for example, surfacing trustworthy information. We also point to key challenges that remain. Ultimately, a range of empirical, technical, and theoretical advancements are needed to fully realize the promise of AI-mediated deliberation for enhancing citizen engagement and strengthening democratic deliberation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

CulturalFrames: Assessing Cultural Expectation Alignment in Text-to-Image Models and Evaluation Metrics

The increasing ubiquity of text-to-image (T2I) models as tools for visual content generation raises concerns about their ability to accurately represent diverse cultural contexts -- where missed cues can stereotype communities and undermine usability. In this work, we present the first study to systematically quantify the alignment of T2I models and evaluation metrics with respect to both explicit (stated) as well as implicit (unstated, implied by the prompt's cultural context) cultural expectations. To this end, we introduce CulturalFrames, a novel benchmark designed for rigorous human evaluation of cultural representation in visual generations. Spanning 10 countries and 5 socio-cultural domains, CulturalFrames comprises 983 prompts, 3637 corresponding images generated by 4 state-of-the-art T2I models, and over 10k detailed human annotations. We find that across models and countries, cultural expectations are missed an average of 44% of the time. Among these failures, explicit expectations are missed at a surprisingly high average rate of 68%, while implicit expectation failures are also significant, averaging 49%. Furthermore, we show that existing T2I evaluation metrics correlate poorly with human judgments of cultural alignment, irrespective of their internal reasoning. Collectively, our findings expose critical gaps, provide a concrete testbed, and outline actionable directions for developing culturally informed T2I models and metrics that improve global usability.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing

Existing alignment research is dominated by concerns about safety and preventing harm: safeguards, controllability, and compliance. This paradigm of alignment parallels early psychology's focus on mental illness: necessary but incomplete. What we call Positive Alignment is the development of AI systems that (i) actively support human and ecological flourishing in a pluralistic, polycentric, context-sensitive, and user-authored way while (ii) remaining safe and cooperative. It is a distinct and necessary agenda within AI alignment research. We argue that several existing failures of alignment (e.g., engagement hacking, loss of human autonomy, failures in truth-seeking, low epistemic humility, error correction, lack of diverse viewpoints, and being primarily reactive rather than proactive) may be better addressed through positive alignment, including cultivating virtues and maximizing human flourishing. We highlight a range of challenges, open questions, and technical directions (e.g., data filtering and upsampling, pre- and post-training, evaluations, collaborative value collection) for different phases of the LLM and agents lifecycle. We end with design principles for promoting disagreement and decentralization through contextual grounding, community customization, continual adaptation, and polycentric governance; that is, many legitimate centers of oversight rather than one institutional or moral chokepoint.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Adversarial Robustness of Visual Dialog

Adversarial robustness evaluates the worst-case performance scenario of a machine learning model to ensure its safety and reliability. This study is the first to investigate the robustness of visually grounded dialog models towards textual attacks. These attacks represent a worst-case scenario where the input question contains a synonym which causes the previously correct model to return a wrong answer. Using this scenario, we first aim to understand how multimodal input components contribute to model robustness. Our results show that models which encode dialog history are more robust, and when launching an attack on history, model prediction becomes more uncertain. This is in contrast to prior work which finds that dialog history is negligible for model performance on this task. We also evaluate how to generate adversarial test examples which successfully fool the model but remain undetected by the user/software designer. We find that the textual, as well as the visual context are important to generate plausible worst-case scenarios.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Why Robust Natural Language Understanding is a Challenge

With the proliferation of Deep Machine Learning into real-life applications, a particular property of this technology has been brought to attention: robustness Neural Networks notoriously present low robustness and can be highly sensitive to small input perturbations. Recently, many methods for verifying networks' general properties of robustness have been proposed, but they are mostly applied in Computer Vision. In this paper we propose a Verification specification for Natural Language Understanding classification based on larger regions of interest, and we discuss the challenges of such task. We observe that, although the data is almost linearly separable, the verifier struggles to output positive results and we explain the problems and implications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

History for Visual Dialog: Do we really need it?

Visual Dialog involves "understanding" the dialog history (what has been discussed previously) and the current question (what is asked), in addition to grounding information in the image, to generate the correct response. In this paper, we show that co-attention models which explicitly encode dialog history outperform models that don't, achieving state-of-the-art performance (72 % NDCG on val set). However, we also expose shortcomings of the crowd-sourcing dataset collection procedure by showing that history is indeed only required for a small amount of the data and that the current evaluation metric encourages generic replies. To that end, we propose a challenging subset (VisDialConv) of the VisDial val set and provide a benchmark of 63% NDCG.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access