The DOI matches its DataCite record.
"Public(s)-in-the-Loop": Facilitating Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions in Contentious Public Policy Domains
Abstract
This position paper offers a framework to think about how to better involve human influence in algorithmic decision-making of contentious public policy issues. Drawing from insights in communication literature, we introduce a "public(s)-in-the-loop" approach and enumerates three features that are central to this approach: publics as plural political entities, collective decision-making through deliberation, and the construction of publics. It explores how these features might advance our understanding of stakeholder participation in AI design in contentious public policy domains such as recidivism prediction. Finally, it sketches out part of a research agenda for the HCI community to support this work.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recent HCI work on user auditing [132], such as the 'WeAudit' tool [126], exemplifies this shift and demonstrates the possibility of designing for a more participatory AI audit process [2, 52, 132].”
From Towards AI Accountability Infrastructure: Gaps and Opportunities in AI Audit Tooling (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Yochai Benkler. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.
- Or Biran and Courtenay Cotton. 2017. Explanation and justification in machine learning: A survey. In IJCAI-17 workshop on explainable AI (XAI), Vol. 8. 1.
- Danah Boyd. 2010. Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In A networked self. Routledge, 47-66.
- Robert J Cavalier. 2011. Approaching deliberative democracy: Theory and practice. Carnegie Mellon University Press.
- John Dewey. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. Swallow Press.
- Carl DiSalvo. 2009. Design and the Construction of Publics. Design issues 25, 1 (2009), 48-63.
- Nancy Fraser. 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social text 25/26 (1990), 56-80.
- Jürgen Habermas. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.
- Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, and others. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory framework for algorithmic governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1-35.
- Narges Mahyar, Michael R James, Michelle M Ng, Reginald A Wu, and Steven P Dow. 2018. CommunityCrit: inviting the public to improve and evaluate urban design ideas through micro-activities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-14.
- Haiyi Zhu, Bowen Yu, Aaron Halfaker, and Loren Terveen. 2018. Value-sensitive algorithm design: Method, case study, and lessons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1-23.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Towards AI Accountability Infrastructure: Gaps and Opportunities in AI Audit Tooling
Ojewale, V., Steed, R., Vecchione, B., Birhane, A., & Raji, I. D. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713301 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Shen, H., Cabrera, Á. A., Perer, A., & Hong, J.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- arXiv
- 2204.10814
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
