arXiv subjects

Jennifer Wortman Vaughan

Publications and source records attributed to Jennifer Wortman Vaughan.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2023

AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap

The rise of powerful large language models (LLMs) brings about tremendous opportunities for innovation but also looming risks for individuals and society at large. We have reached a pivotal moment for ensuring that LLMs and LLM-infused applications are developed and deployed responsibly. However, a central pillar of responsible AI -- transparency -- is largely missing from the current discourse around LLMs. It is paramount to pursue new approaches to provide transparency for LLMs, and years of research at the intersection of AI and human-computer interaction (HCI) highlight that we must do so with a human-centered perspective: Transparency is fundamentally about supporting appropriate human understanding, and this understanding is sought by different stakeholders with different goals in different contexts. In this new era of LLMs, we must develop and design approaches to transparency by considering the needs of stakeholders in the emerging LLM ecosystem, the novel types of LLM-infused applications being built, and the new usage patterns and challenges around LLMs, all while building on lessons learned about how people process, interact with, and make use of information. We reflect on the unique challenges that arise in providing transparency for LLMs, along with lessons learned from HCI and responsible AI research that has taken a human-centered perspective on AI transparency. We then lay out four common approaches that the community has taken to achieve transparency -- model reporting, publishing evaluation results, providing explanations, and communicating uncertainty -- and call out open questions around how these approaches may or may not be applied to LLMs. We hope this provides a starting point for discussion and a useful roadmap for future research.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations

AI explanations are often mentioned as a way to improve human-AI decision-making, but empirical studies have not found consistent evidence of explanations' effectiveness and, on the contrary, suggest that they can increase overreliance when the AI system is wrong. While many factors may affect reliance on AI support, one important factor is how decision-makers reconcile their own intuition -- beliefs or heuristics, based on prior knowledge, experience, or pattern recognition, used to make judgments -- with the information provided by the AI system to determine when to override AI predictions. We conduct a think-aloud, mixed-methods study with two explanation types (feature- and example-based) for two prediction tasks to explore how decision-makers' intuition affects their use of AI predictions and explanations, and ultimately their choice of when to rely on AI. Our results identify three types of intuition involved in reasoning about AI predictions and explanations: intuition about the task outcome, features, and AI limitations. Building on these, we summarize three observed pathways for decision-makers to apply their own intuition and override AI predictions. We use these pathways to explain why (1) the feature-based explanations we used did not improve participants' decision outcomes and increased their overreliance on AI, and (2) the example-based explanations we used improved decision-makers' performance over feature-based explanations and helped achieve complementary human-AI performance. Overall, our work identifies directions for further development of AI decision-support systems and explanation methods that help decision-makers effectively apply their intuition to achieve appropriate reliance on AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Has the Machine Learning Review Process Become More Arbitrary as the Field Has Grown? The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment

We present the NeurIPS 2021 consistency experiment, a larger-scale variant of the 2014 NeurIPS experiment in which 10% of conference submissions were reviewed by two independent committees to quantify the randomness in the review process. We observe that the two committees disagree on their accept/reject recommendations for 23% of the papers and that, consistent with the results from 2014, approximately half of the list of accepted papers would change if the review process were randomly rerun. Our analysis suggests that making the conference more selective would increase the arbitrariness of the process. Taken together with previous research, our results highlight the inherent difficulty of objectively measuring the quality of research, and suggest that authors should not be excessively discouraged by rejected work.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

GAM Coach: Towards Interactive and User-centered Algorithmic Recourse

Machine learning (ML) recourse techniques are increasingly used in high-stakes domains, providing end users with actions to alter ML predictions, but they assume ML developers understand what input variables can be changed. However, a recourse plan's actionability is subjective and unlikely to match developers' expectations completely. We present GAM Coach, a novel open-source system that adapts integer linear programming to generate customizable counterfactual explanations for Generalized Additive Models (GAMs), and leverages interactive visualizations to enable end users to iteratively generate recourse plans meeting their needs. A quantitative user study with 41 participants shows our tool is usable and useful, and users prefer personalized recourse plans over generic plans. Through a log analysis, we explore how users discover satisfactory recourse plans, and provide empirical evidence that transparency can lead to more opportunities for everyday users to discover counterintuitive patterns in ML models. GAM Coach is available at: https://poloclub.github.io/gam-coach/.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Designerly Understanding: Information Needs for Model Transparency to Support Design Ideation for AI-Powered User Experience

Despite the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI), designing user experiences (UX) for AI-powered systems remains challenging. UX designers face hurdles understanding AI technologies, such as pre-trained language models, as design materials. This limits their ability to ideate and make decisions about whether, where, and how to use AI. To address this problem, we bridge the literature on AI design and AI transparency to explore whether and how frameworks for transparent model reporting can support design ideation with pre-trained models. By interviewing 23 UX practitioners, we find that practitioners frequently work with pre-trained models, but lack support for UX-led ideation. Through a scenario-based design task, we identify common goals that designers seek model understanding for and pinpoint their model transparency information needs. Our study highlights the pivotal role that UX designers can play in Responsible AI and calls for supporting their understanding of AI limitations through model transparency and interrogation.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions?

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we survey the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction is 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers are similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agree (93%) with their predicted acceptance probabilities, but there is a notable 7% responses where authors think their better paper will face a worse outcome. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate -- about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Understanding Machine Learning Practitioners' Data Documentation Perceptions, Needs, Challenges, and Desiderata

Data is central to the development and evaluation of machine learning (ML) models. However, the use of problematic or inappropriate datasets can result in harms when the resulting models are deployed. To encourage responsible AI practice through more deliberate reflection on datasets and transparency around the processes by which they are created, researchers and practitioners have begun to advocate for increased data documentation and have proposed several data documentation frameworks. However, there is little research on whether these data documentation frameworks meet the needs of ML practitioners, who both create and consume datasets. To address this gap, we set out to understand ML practitioners' data documentation perceptions, needs, challenges, and desiderata, with the goal of deriving design requirements that can inform future data documentation frameworks. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with 14 ML practitioners at a single large, international technology company. We had them answer a list of questions taken from datasheets for datasets (Gebru, 2021). Our findings show that current approaches to data documentation are largely ad hoc and myopic in nature. Participants expressed needs for data documentation frameworks to be adaptable to their contexts, integrated into their existing tools and workflows, and automated wherever possible. Despite the fact that data documentation frameworks are often motivated from the perspective of responsible AI, participants did not make the connection between the questions that they were asked to answer and their responsible AI implications. In addition, participants often had difficulties prioritizing the needs of dataset consumers and providing information that someone unfamiliar with their datasets might need to know. Based on these findings, we derive seven design requirements for future data documentation frameworks.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Interpretable Distribution Shift Detection using Optimal Transport

We propose a method to identify and characterize distribution shifts in classification datasets based on optimal transport. It allows the user to identify the extent to which each class is affected by the shift, and retrieves corresponding pairs of samples to provide insights on its nature. We illustrate its use on synthetic and natural shift examples. While the results we present are preliminary, we hope that this inspires future work on interpretable methods for analyzing distribution shifts.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Interpretability, Then What? Editing Machine Learning Models to Reflect Human Knowledge and Values

Machine learning (ML) interpretability techniques can reveal undesirable patterns in data that models exploit to make predictions--potentially causing harms once deployed. However, how to take action to address these patterns is not always clear. In a collaboration between ML and human-computer interaction researchers, physicians, and data scientists, we develop GAM Changer, the first interactive system to help domain experts and data scientists easily and responsibly edit Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) and fix problematic patterns. With novel interaction techniques, our tool puts interpretability into action--empowering users to analyze, validate, and align model behaviors with their knowledge and values. Physicians have started to use our tool to investigate and fix pneumonia and sepsis risk prediction models, and an evaluation with 7 data scientists working in diverse domains highlights that our tool is easy to use, meets their model editing needs, and fits into their current workflows. Built with modern web technologies, our tool runs locally in users' web browsers or computational notebooks, lowering the barrier to use. GAM Changer is available at the following public demo link: https://interpret.ml/gam-changer.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

REAL ML: Recognizing, Exploring, and Articulating Limitations of Machine Learning Research

Transparency around limitations can improve the scientific rigor of research, help ensure appropriate interpretation of research findings, and make research claims more credible. Despite these benefits, the machine learning (ML) research community lacks well-developed norms around disclosing and discussing limitations. To address this gap, we conduct an iterative design process with 30 ML and ML-adjacent researchers to develop and test REAL ML, a set of guided activities to help ML researchers recognize, explore, and articulate the limitations of their research. Using a three-stage interview and survey study, we identify ML researchers' perceptions of limitations, as well as the challenges they face when recognizing, exploring, and articulating limitations. We develop REAL ML to address some of these practical challenges, and highlight additional cultural challenges that will require broader shifts in community norms to address. We hope our study and REAL ML help move the ML research community toward more active and appropriate engagement with limitations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support

Various tools and practices have been developed to support practitioners in identifying, assessing, and mitigating fairness-related harms caused by AI systems. However, prior research has highlighted gaps between the intended design of these tools and practices and their use within particular contexts, including gaps caused by the role that organizational factors play in shaping fairness work. In this paper, we investigate these gaps for one such practice: disaggregated evaluations of AI systems, intended to uncover performance disparities between demographic groups. By conducting semi-structured interviews and structured workshops with thirty-three AI practitioners from ten teams at three technology companies, we identify practitioners' processes, challenges, and needs for support when designing disaggregated evaluations. We find that practitioners face challenges when choosing performance metrics, identifying the most relevant direct stakeholders and demographic groups on which to focus, and collecting datasets with which to conduct disaggregated evaluations. More generally, we identify impacts on fairness work stemming from a lack of engagement with direct stakeholders or domain experts, business imperatives that prioritize customers over marginalized groups, and the drive to deploy AI systems at scale.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Truthful Aggregation of Budget Proposals

We consider a participatory budgeting problem in which each voter submits a proposal for how to divide a single divisible resource (such as money or time) among several possible alternatives (such as public projects or activities) and these proposals must be aggregated into a single aggregate division. Under $\ell_1$ preferences -- for which a voter's disutility is given by the $\ell_1$ distance between the aggregate division and the division he or she most prefers -- the social welfare-maximizing mechanism, which minimizes the average $\ell_1$ distance between the outcome and each voter's proposal, is incentive compatible (Goel et al. 2016). However, it fails to satisfy the natural fairness notion of proportionality, placing too much weight on majority preferences. Leveraging a connection between market prices and the generalized median rules of Moulin (1980), we introduce the independent markets mechanism, which is both incentive compatible and proportional. We unify the social welfare-maximizing mechanism and the independent markets mechanism by defining a broad class of moving phantom mechanisms that includes both. We show that every moving phantom mechanism is incentive compatible. Finally, we characterize the social welfare-maximizing mechanism as the unique Pareto-optimal mechanism in this class, suggesting an inherent tradeoff between Pareto optimality and proportionality.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2021

Greedy Algorithm almost Dominates in Smoothed Contextual Bandits

Online learning algorithms, widely used to power search and content optimization on the web, must balance exploration and exploitation, potentially sacrificing the experience of current users in order to gain information that will lead to better decisions in the future. While necessary in the worst case, explicit exploration has a number of disadvantages compared to the greedy algorithm that always "exploits" by choosing an action that currently looks optimal. We ask under what conditions inherent diversity in the data makes explicit exploration unnecessary. We build on a recent line of work on the smoothed analysis of the greedy algorithm in the linear contextual bandits model. We improve on prior results to show that a greedy approach almost matches the best possible Bayesian regret rate of any other algorithm on the same problem instance whenever the diversity conditions hold, and that this regret is at most $\tilde O(T^{1/3})$.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

GAM Changer: Editing Generalized Additive Models with Interactive Visualization

Recent strides in interpretable machine learning (ML) research reveal that models exploit undesirable patterns in the data to make predictions, which potentially causes harms in deployment. However, it is unclear how we can fix these models. We present our ongoing work, GAM Changer, an open-source interactive system to help data scientists and domain experts easily and responsibly edit their Generalized Additive Models (GAMs). With novel visualization techniques, our tool puts interpretability into action -- empowering human users to analyze, validate, and align model behaviors with their knowledge and values. Built using modern web technologies, our tool runs locally in users' computational notebooks or web browsers without requiring extra compute resources, lowering the barrier to creating more responsible ML models. GAM Changer is available at https://interpret.ml/gam-changer.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Datasheets for Datasets

The machine learning community currently has no standardized process for documenting datasets, which can lead to severe consequences in high-stakes domains. To address this gap, we propose datasheets for datasets. In the electronics industry, every component, no matter how simple or complex, is accompanied with a datasheet that describes its operating characteristics, test results, recommended uses, and other information. By analogy, we propose that every dataset be accompanied with a datasheet that documents its motivation, composition, collection process, recommended uses, and so on. Datasheets for datasets will facilitate better communication between dataset creators and dataset consumers, and encourage the machine learning community to prioritize transparency and accountability.

cs.DB↗

arXiv2021

Designing Disaggregated Evaluations of AI Systems: Choices, Considerations, and Tradeoffs

Disaggregated evaluations of AI systems, in which system performance is assessed and reported separately for different groups of people, are conceptually simple. However, their design involves a variety of choices. Some of these choices influence the results that will be obtained, and thus the conclusions that can be drawn; others influence the impacts -- both beneficial and harmful -- that a disaggregated evaluation will have on people, including the people whose data is used to conduct the evaluation. We argue that a deeper understanding of these choices will enable researchers and practitioners to design careful and conclusive disaggregated evaluations. We also argue that better documentation of these choices, along with the underlying considerations and tradeoffs that have been made, will help others when interpreting an evaluation's results and conclusions.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

From Human Explanation to Model Interpretability: A Framework Based on Weight of Evidence

We take inspiration from the study of human explanation to inform the design and evaluation of interpretability methods in machine learning. First, we survey the literature on human explanation in philosophy, cognitive science, and the social sciences, and propose a list of design principles for machine-generated explanations that are meaningful to humans. Using the concept of weight of evidence from information theory, we develop a method for generating explanations that adhere to these principles. We show that this method can be adapted to handle high-dimensional, multi-class settings, yielding a flexible framework for generating explanations. We demonstrate that these explanations can be estimated accurately from finite samples and are robust to small perturbations of the inputs. We also evaluate our method through a qualitative user study with machine learning practitioners, where we observe that the resulting explanations are usable despite some participants struggling with background concepts like prior class probabilities. Finally, we conclude by surfacing~design~implications for interpretability tools in general.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

Incentive-Compatible Forecasting Competitions

We initiate the study of incentive-compatible forecasting competitions in which multiple forecasters make predictions about one or more events and compete for a single prize. We have two objectives: (1) to incentivize forecasters to report truthfully and (2) to award the prize to the most accurate forecaster. Proper scoring rules incentivize truthful reporting if all forecasters are paid according to their scores. However, incentives become distorted if only the best-scoring forecaster wins a prize, since forecasters can often increase their probability of having the highest score by reporting more extreme beliefs. In this paper, we introduce two novel forecasting competition mechanisms. Our first mechanism is incentive compatible and guaranteed to select the most accurate forecaster with probability higher than any other forecaster. Moreover, we show that in the standard single-event, two-forecaster setting and under mild technical conditions, no other incentive-compatible mechanism selects the most accurate forecaster with higher probability. Our second mechanism is incentive compatible when forecasters' beliefs are such that information about one event does not lead to belief updates on other events, and it selects the best forecaster with probability approaching 1 as the number of events grows. Our notion of incentive compatibility is more general than previous definitions of dominant strategy incentive compatibility in that it allows for reports to be correlated with the event outcomes. Moreover, our mechanisms are easy to implement and can be generalized to the related problems of outputting a ranking over forecasters and hiring a forecaster with high accuracy on future events.

cs.GT↗