Can Data Work be Reparative?

This paper traces a conceptual shift from understanding vulnerability as a static, essentialized property of data subjects to examining how it is actively enacted through data practices. Unlike reflexive ethical frameworks focused on missing or counter-data, we address the condition of abundance inherent to platformized life-a context where a near inexhaustible mass of data points already exists, shifting the ethical challenge to the researcher's choices in operating upon this existing mass. We argue that the ethical integrity of data science depends not just on who is studied, but on how technical pipelines transform "vulnerable" individuals into data subjects whose vulnerability can be further precarized. We develop this argument through an AI for Social Good (AI4SG) case: a journalist's request to use computer vision to quantify child presence in monetized YouTube 'family vlogs' for regulatory advocacy. This case reveals a "protection paradox": how data-driven efforts to protect vulnerable subjects can inadvertently impose new forms of computational exposure, reductionism, and extraction. Using this request as a point of departure, we perform a methodological deconstruction of the AI pipeline to show how granular technical decisions are ethically constitutive. We contribute a reflexive ethics protocol that translates these insights into a reflexive roadmap for research ethics surrounding platformized data subjects. Organized around four critical junctures-dataset design, operationalization, inference, and dissemination-the protocol identifies technical questions and ethical tensions where well-intentioned work can slide into renewed extraction or exposure. For every decision point, the protocol offers specific prompts to navigate four cross-cutting vulnerabilizing factors: exposure, monetization, narrative fixing, and algorithmic optimization. Rather than uncritically...

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are suffering from ethical issues such as individual discrimination. In response, extensive NN repair techniques have been developed to adjust models and mitigate such undesired behaviors. However, existing fairness repair methods are typically data-centric, which often lack provable guarantees and generalization to unseen samples. To overcome these limitations, we propose ProF, a novel fairness repair framework with provable guarantees. The key intuition of ProF is to leverage interval bound propagation (a widely used NN verification technique) to soundly capture model outputs over the whole set $S(\mathbf{x})$ around a biased sample $\mathbf{x}$. The derived bounds are utilized to guide fairness repair which encourages the model to produce consistent outputs on $S(\mathbf{x})$. Specifically, we integrate fairness constraints and model modifications into a unified constraint-solving formulation, which can be transformed to a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) problem solvable by off-the-shelf solvers. The solution to the MILP problem effectively induces a repaired model with guaranteed fairness over the whole set $S(\mathbf{x})$. We evaluate ProF on four widely used benchmark datasets and demonstrate that it achieves provable fairness repair, with generalization of up to 95.93% on full datasets and 93.16% on the entire input space. Notably, ProF can be easily configured to support multiple sensitive attributes and more practical fairness definitions, while providing provable repair guarantees and delivering around 90% fairness improvement. Our code is available at https://github.com/nninjn/ProF.

In this paper, we motivate the need for a participatory speech dataset creation framework through a case study of the LGBTQIA+, or queer, community - a community with documented concerns about AI and reported harms, including attempts to develop 'gaydar' technologies that purportedly identify individuals as queer. We review common speech data collection practices, why these methods may be unsuitable for engaging with queer speakers, and discuss previous efforts in participatory AI with queer community engagement, as well as participatory endeavours specific to speech data collection for other marginalized communities. From this review, we develop a conceptual framework for participatory speech data curation by, for, and with marginalized communities drawing on insights from co-design and knowledge sharing. We propose a framework comprising overlapping and two-way processes of defining a community, project formulation, modes of participation, and personal autonomy.