Orestis Papakyriakopoulos

Jerone T. A. Andrews, Dora Zhao, William Thong et al.

Human-centric computer vision (HCCV) data curation practices often neglect privacy and bias concerns, leading to dataset retractions and unfair models. HCCV datasets constructed through nonconsensual web scraping lack crucial metadata for comprehensive fairness and robustness evaluations. Current remedies are post hoc, lack persuasive justification for adoption, or fail to provide proper contextualization for appropriate application. Our research focuses on proactive, domain-specific recommendations, covering purpose, privacy and consent, and diversity, for curating HCCV evaluation datasets, addressing privacy and bias concerns. We adopt an ante hoc reflective perspective, drawing from current practices, guidelines, dataset withdrawals, and audits, to inform our considerations and recommendations.

Dora Zhao, Jerone T. A. Andrews, Orestis Papakyriakopoulos et al.

Machine learning (ML) datasets, often perceived as neutral, inherently encapsulate abstract and disputed social constructs. Dataset curators frequently employ value-laden terms such as diversity, bias, and quality to characterize datasets. Despite their prevalence, these terms lack clear definitions and validation. Our research explores the implications of this issue by analyzing "diversity" across 135 image and text datasets. Drawing from social sciences, we apply principles from measurement theory to identify considerations and offer recommendations for conceptualizing, operationalizing, and evaluating diversity in datasets. Our findings have broader implications for ML research, advocating for a more nuanced and precise approach to handling value-laden properties in dataset construction.

Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, Severin Engelmann, Amy Winecoff

A significant share of political discourse occurs online on social media platforms. Policymakers and researchers try to understand the role of social media design in shaping the quality of political discourse around the globe. In the past decades, scholarship on political discourse theory has produced distinct characteristics of different types of prominent political rhetoric such as deliberative, civic, or demagogic discourse. This study investigates the relationship between social media reaction mechanisms (i.e., upvotes, downvotes) and political rhetoric in user discussions by engaging in an in-depth conceptual analysis of political discourse theory. First, we analyze 155 million user comments in 55 political subforums on Reddit between 2010 and 2018 to explore whether users' style of political discussion aligns with the essential components of deliberative, civic, and demagogic discourse. Second, we perform a quantitative study that combines confirmatory factor analysis with difference in differences models to explore whether different reaction mechanism schemes (e.g., upvotes only, upvotes and downvotes, no reaction mechanisms) correspond with political user discussion that is more or less characteristic of deliberative, civic, or demagogic discourse. We produce three main takeaways. First, despite being "ideal constructs of political rhetoric," we find that political discourse theories describe political discussions on Reddit to a large extent. Second, we find that discussions in subforums with only upvotes, or both up- and downvotes are associated with user discourse that is more deliberate and civic. Third, social media discussions are most demagogic in subreddits with no reaction mechanisms at all. These findings offer valuable contributions for ongoing policy discussions on the relationship between social media interface design and respectful political discussion among users.

Yusuke Hirota, Jerone T. A. Andrews, Dora Zhao et al.

We tackle societal bias in image-text datasets by removing spurious correlations between protected groups and image attributes. Traditional methods only target labeled attributes, ignoring biases from unlabeled ones. Using text-guided inpainting models, our approach ensures protected group independence from all attributes and mitigates inpainting biases through data filtering. Evaluations on multi-label image classification and image captioning tasks show our method effectively reduces bias without compromising performance across various models.

Simon Jarvers, Orestis Papakyriakopoulos

Under the EU AI Act, translating AI governance requirements into software development practice remains challenging. While AI governance frameworks exist at industry and organizational levels, empirical evidence of team-level implementation is scarce. We address this "Last Mile" Challenge through insider action research embedded within an AI startup. We present a legal-text-to-action pipeline that translates EU AI Act requirements into actionable strategies through internal expert collaboration by extracting requirements from legal text, engaging practitioners in assessment and ideation, and prioritizing implementation through collective evaluation. Our analysis reveals three patterns in how practitioners perceive regulatory requirements: convergence (compliance aligns with development priorities), existing practice (current work already satisfies requirements), and disconnection (requirements perceived as administrative overhead). Based on these patterns, we discuss when governance might be treated genuinely or performatively. Practitioners prioritize requirements that serve end-users or their own development needs, but view verification-oriented requirements as box-ticking exercises. This distinction suggests a translation challenge: regulatory requirements risk superficial treatment unless practitioners understand how compliance serves system quality and user protection. Expert collaboration offers a practical mechanism for transforming governance from external imposition to shared ownership and making previously invisible governance work visible and collective.

Dalia Ali, Dora Zhao, Allison Koenecke et al.

Although large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained using human feedback for safety and alignment with human values, alignment decisions often overlook human social diversity. This study examines how incorporating pluralistic values affects LLM behavior by systematically evaluating demographic variation and design parameters in the alignment pipeline. We collected alignment data from US and German participants (N = 1,095, 27,375 ratings) who rated LLM responses across five dimensions: Toxicity, Emotional Awareness (EA), Sensitivity, Stereotypical Bias, and Helpfulness. We fine-tuned multiple Large Language Models and Large Reasoning Models using preferences from different social groups while varying rating scales, disagreement handling methods, and optimization techniques. The results revealed systematic demographic effects: male participants rated responses 18% less toxic than female participants; conservative and Black participants rated responses 27.9% and 44% more emotionally aware than liberal and White participants, respectively. Models fine-tuned on group-specific preferences exhibited distinct behaviors. Technical design choices showed strong effects: the preservation of rater disagreement achieved roughly 53% greater toxicity reduction than majority voting, and 5-point scales yielded about 22% more reduction than binary formats; and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) consistently outperformed Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) in multi-value optimization. These findings represent a preliminary step in answering a critical question: How should alignment balance expert-driven and user-driven signals to ensure both safety and fair representation?

Dalia Ali, Muneeb Ahmed, Hailan Wang et al.

Despite AI's promise for addressing global challenges, empirical understanding of AI adoption in mission-driven organizations (MDOs) remains limited. While research emphasizes individual applications or ethical principles, little is known about how resource-constrained, values-driven organizations navigate AI integration across operations. We conducted thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 15 practitioners from environmental, humanitarian, and development organizations across the Global North and South contexts. Our analysis examines how MDOs currently deploy AI, what barriers constrain adoption, and how practitioners envision future integration. MDOs adopt AI selectively, with sophisticated deployment in content creation and data analysis while maintaining human oversight for mission-critical applications. When AI's efficiency benefits conflict with organizational values, decision-making stalls rather than negotiating trade-offs. This study contributes empirical evidence that AI adoption in MDOs should be understood as conditional rather than inevitable, proceeding only where it strengthens organizational sovereignty and mission integrity while preserving human-centered approaches essential to their missions.

Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, Alice Xiang

Speech AI Technologies are largely trained on publicly available datasets or by the massive web-crawling of speech. In both cases, data acquisition focuses on minimizing collection effort, without necessarily taking the data subjects' protection or user needs into consideration. This results to models that are not robust when used on users who deviate from the dominant demographics in the training set, discriminating individuals having different dialects, accents, speaking styles, and disfluencies. In this talk, we use automatic speech recognition as a case study and examine the properties that ethical speech datasets should possess towards responsible AI applications. We showcase diversity issues, inclusion practices, and necessary considerations that can improve trained models, while facilitating model explainability and protecting users and data subjects. We argue for the legal & privacy protection of data subjects, targeted data sampling corresponding to user demographics & needs, appropriate meta data that ensure explainability & accountability in cases of model failure, and the sociotechnical \& situated model design. We hope this talk can inspire researchers \& practitioners to design and use more human-centric datasets in speech technologies and other domains, in ways that empower and respect users, while improving machine learning models' robustness and utility.

Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Amy Winecoff et al.

Human-centered artificial intelligence (AI) posits that machine learning and AI should be developed and applied in a socially aware way. In this article, we argue that qualitative analysis (QA) can be a valuable tool in this process, supplementing, informing, and extending the possibilities of AI models. We show this by describing how QA can be integrated in the current prediction paradigm of AI, assisting scientists in the process of selecting data, variables, and model architectures. Furthermore, we argue that QA can be a part of novel paradigms towards Human Centered AI. QA can support scientists and practitioners in practical problem solving and situated model development. It can also promote participatory design approaches, reveal understudied and emerging issues in AI systems, and assist policy making.