arXiv subjects

Casey Dugan

Publications and source records attributed to Casey Dugan.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Current and Future Use of Large Language Models for Knowledge Work

Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced a paradigm shift in interaction with AI technology, enabling knowledge workers to complete tasks by specifying their desired outcome in natural language. LLMs have the potential to increase productivity and reduce tedious tasks in an unprecedented way. A systematic study of LLM adoption for work can provide insight into how LLMs can best support these workers. To explore knowledge workers' current and desired usage of LLMs, we ran a survey (n=216). Workers described tasks they already used LLMs for, like generating code or improving text, but imagined a future with LLMs integrated into their workflows and data. We ran a second survey (n=107) a year later that validated our initial findings and provides insight into up-to-date LLM use by knowledge workers. We discuss implications for adoption and design of generative AI technologies for knowledge work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

A Risk Taxonomy and Reflection Tool for Large Language Model Adoption in Public Health

Recent breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have generated both interest and concern about their potential adoption as information sources or communication tools across different domains. In public health, where stakes are high and impacts extend across diverse populations, adopting LLMs poses unique challenges that require thorough evaluation. However, structured approaches for assessing potential risks in public health remain under-explored. To address this gap, we conducted focus groups with public health professionals and individuals with lived experience to unpack their concerns, situated across three distinct and critical public health issues that demand high-quality information: infectious disease prevention (vaccines), chronic and well-being care (opioid use disorder), and community health and safety (intimate partner violence). We synthesize participants' perspectives into a risk taxonomy, identifying and contextualizing the potential harms LLMs may introduce when positioned alongside traditional health communication. This taxonomy highlights four dimensions of risk to individuals, human-centered care, information ecosystem, and technology accountability. For each dimension, we unpack specific risks and offer example reflection questions to help practitioners adopt a risk-reflexive approach. By summarizing distinctive LLM characteristics and linking them to identified risks, we discuss the need to revisit prior mental models of information behaviors and complement evaluations with external validity and domain expertise through lived experience and real-world practices. Together, this work contributes a shared vocabulary and reflection tool for people in both computing and public health to collaboratively anticipate, evaluate, and mitigate risks in deciding when to employ LLM capabilities (or not) and how to mitigate harm.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Emerging Reliance Behaviors in Human-AI Content Grounded Data Generation: The Role of Cognitive Forcing Functions and Hallucinations

We investigate the impact of hallucinations and Cognitive Forcing Functions in human-AI collaborative content-grounded data generation, focusing on the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist in generating high quality conversational data. Through a study with 34 users who each completed 8 tasks (n=272), we found that hallucinations significantly reduce data quality. While Cognitive Forcing Functions do not always alleviate these effects, their presence influences how users integrate AI responses. Specifically, we observed emerging reliance behaviors, with users often appending AI-generated responses to their correct answers, even when the AI's suggestions conflicted. This points to a potential drawback of Cognitive Forcing Functions, particularly when AI suggestions are inaccurate. Users who overrelied on AI-generated text produced lower quality data, emphasizing the nuanced dynamics of overreliance in human-LLM collaboration compared to traditional human-AI decision-making.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Facilitating Human-LLM Collaboration through Factuality Scores and Source Attributions

While humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs), they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations". Technical advancements have been made in algorithms that detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses and attributing sections of those responses to specific source documents. However, there is limited research on how to effectively communicate this information to users in ways that will help them appropriately calibrate their trust toward LLMs. To address this issue, we conducted a scenario-based study (N=104) to systematically compare the impact of various design strategies for communicating factuality and source attribution on participants' ratings of trust, preferences, and ease in validating response accuracy. Our findings reveal that participants preferred a design in which phrases within a response were color-coded based on the computed factuality scores. Additionally, participants increased their trust ratings when relevant sections of the source material were highlighted or responses were annotated with reference numbers corresponding to those sources, compared to when they received no annotation in the source material. Our study offers practical design guidelines to facilitate human-LLM collaboration and it promotes a new human role to carefully evaluate and take responsibility for their use of LLM outputs.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Helping the Helper: Supporting Peer Counselors via AI-Empowered Practice and Feedback

Millions of users come to online peer counseling platforms to seek support. However, studies show that online peer support groups are not always as effective as expected, largely due to users' negative experiences with unhelpful counselors. Peer counselors are key to the success of online peer counseling platforms, but most often do not receive appropriate training.Hence, we introduce CARE: an AI-based tool to empower and train peer counselors through practice and feedback. Concretely, CARE helps diagnose which counseling strategies are needed in a given situation and suggests example responses to counselors during their practice sessions. Building upon the Motivational Interviewing framework, CARE utilizes large-scale counseling conversation data with text generation techniques to enable these functionalities. We demonstrate the efficacy of CARE by performing quantitative evaluations and qualitative user studies through simulated chats and semi-structured interviews, finding that CARE especially helps novice counselors in challenging situations. The code is available at https://github.com/SALT-NLP/CARE

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairness

Mitigating algorithmic bias is a critical task in the development and deployment of machine learning models. While several toolkits exist to aid machine learning practitioners in addressing fairness issues, little is known about the strategies practitioners employ to evaluate model fairness and what factors influence their assessment, particularly in the context of text classification. Two common approaches of evaluating the fairness of a model are group fairness and individual fairness. We run a study with Machine Learning practitioners (n=24) to understand the strategies used to evaluate models. Metrics presented to practitioners (group vs. individual fairness) impact which models they consider fair. Participants focused on risks associated with underpredicting/overpredicting and model sensitivity relative to identity token manipulations. We discover fairness assessment strategies involving personal experiences or how users form groups of identity tokens to test model fairness. We provide recommendations for interactive tools for evaluating fairness in text classification.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Increasing the Speed and Accuracy of Data LabelingThrough an AI Assisted Interface

Labeling data is an important step in the supervised machine learning lifecycle. It is a laborious human activity comprised of repeated decision making: the human labeler decides which of several potential labels to apply to each example. Prior work has shown that providing AI assistance can improve the accuracy of binary decision tasks. However, the role of AI assistance in more complex data-labeling scenarios with a larger set of labels has not yet been explored. We designed an AI labeling assistant that uses a semi-supervised learning algorithm to predict the most probable labels for each example. We leverage these predictions to provide assistance in two ways: (i) providing a label recommendation and (ii) reducing the labeler's decision space by focusing their attention on only the most probable labels. We conducted a user study (n=54) to evaluate an AI-assisted interface for data labeling in this context. Our results highlight that the AI assistance improves both labeler accuracy and speed, especially when the labeler finds the correct label in the reduced label space. We discuss findings related to the presentation of AI assistance and design implications for intelligent labeling interfaces.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Documentation Matters: Human-Centered AI System to Assist Data Science Code Documentation in Computational Notebooks

Computational notebooks allow data scientists to express their ideas through a combination of code and documentation. However, data scientists often pay attention only to the code, and neglect creating or updating their documentation during quick iterations. Inspired by human documentation practices learned from 80 highly-voted Kaggle notebooks, we design and implement Themisto, an automated documentation generation system to explore how human-centered AI systems can support human data scientists in the machine learning code documentation scenario. Themisto facilitates the creation of documentation via three approaches: a deep-learning-based approach to generate documentation for source code, a query-based approach to retrieve online API documentation for source code, and a user prompt approach to nudge users to write documentation. We evaluated Themisto in a within-subjects experiment with 24 data science practitioners, and found that automated documentation generation techniques reduced the time for writing documentation, reminded participants to document code they would have ignored, and improved participants' satisfaction with their computational notebook.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

AutoDS: Towards Human-Centered Automation of Data Science

Data science (DS) projects often follow a lifecycle that consists of laborious tasks for data scientists and domain experts (e.g., data exploration, model training, etc.). Only till recently, machine learning(ML) researchers have developed promising automation techniques to aid data workers in these tasks. This paper introduces AutoDS, an automated machine learning (AutoML) system that aims to leverage the latest ML automation techniques to support data science projects. Data workers only need to upload their dataset, then the system can automatically suggest ML configurations, preprocess data, select algorithm, and train the model. These suggestions are presented to the user via a web-based graphical user interface and a notebook-based programming user interface. We studied AutoDS with 30 professional data scientists, where one group used AutoDS, and the other did not, to complete a data science project. As expected, AutoDS improves productivity; Yet surprisingly, we find that the models produced by the AutoDS group have higher quality and less errors, but lower human confidence scores. We reflect on the findings by presenting design implications for incorporating automation techniques into human work in the data science lifecycle.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2019

How Data Scientists Work Together With Domain Experts in Scientific Collaborations: To Find The Right Answer Or To Ask The Right Question?

In recent years there has been an increasing trend in which data scientists and domain experts work together to tackle complex scientific questions. However, such collaborations often face challenges. In this paper, we aim to decipher this collaboration complexity through a semi-structured interview study with 22 interviewees from teams of bio-medical scientists collaborating with data scientists. In the analysis, we adopt the Olsons' four-dimensions framework proposed in Distance Matters to code interview transcripts. Our findings suggest that besides the glitches in the collaboration readiness, technology readiness, and coupling of work dimensions, the tensions that exist in the common ground building process influence the collaboration outcomes, and then persist in the actual collaboration process. In contrast to prior works' general account of building a high level of common ground, the breakdowns of content common ground together with the strengthen of process common ground in this process is more beneficial for scientific discovery. We discuss why that is and what the design suggestions are, and conclude the paper with future directions and limitations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

Human-AI Collaboration in Data Science: Exploring Data Scientists' Perceptions of Automated AI

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is changing our lives in many ways. One application domain is data science. New techniques in automating the creation of AI, known as AutoAI or AutoML, aim to automate the work practices of data scientists. AutoAI systems are capable of autonomously ingesting and pre-processing data, engineering new features, and creating and scoring models based on a target objectives (e.g. accuracy or run-time efficiency). Though not yet widely adopted, we are interested in understanding how AutoAI will impact the practice of data science. We conducted interviews with 20 data scientists who work at a large, multinational technology company and practice data science in various business settings. Our goal is to understand their current work practices and how these practices might change with AutoAI. Reactions were mixed: while informants expressed concerns about the trend of automating their jobs, they also strongly felt it was inevitable. Despite these concerns, they remained optimistic about their future job security due to a view that the future of data science work will be a collaboration between humans and AI systems, in which both automation and human expertise are indispensable.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2019

Explaining Models: An Empirical Study of How Explanations Impact Fairness Judgment

Ensuring fairness of machine learning systems is a human-in-the-loop process. It relies on developers, users, and the general public to identify fairness problems and make improvements. To facilitate the process we need effective, unbiased, and user-friendly explanations that people can confidently rely on. Towards that end, we conducted an empirical study with four types of programmatically generated explanations to understand how they impact people's fairness judgments of ML systems. With an experiment involving more than 160 Mechanical Turk workers, we show that: 1) Certain explanations are considered inherently less fair, while others can enhance people's confidence in the fairness of the algorithm; 2) Different fairness problems--such as model-wide fairness issues versus case-specific fairness discrepancies--may be more effectively exposed through different styles of explanation; 3) Individual differences, including prior positions and judgment criteria of algorithmic fairness, impact how people react to different styles of explanation. We conclude with a discussion on providing personalized and adaptive explanations to support fairness judgments of ML systems.

cs.HC↗