arXiv subjects

Kenneth Holstein

Publications and source records attributed to Kenneth Holstein.

51 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2023

Understanding Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities for User-Engaged Algorithm Auditing in Industry Practice

Recent years have seen growing interest among both researchers and practitioners in user-engaged approaches to algorithm auditing, which directly engage users in detecting problematic behaviors in algorithmic systems. However, we know little about industry practitioners' current practices and challenges around user-engaged auditing, nor what opportunities exist for them to better leverage such approaches in practice. To investigate, we conducted a series of interviews and iterative co-design activities with practitioners who employ user-engaged auditing approaches in their work. Our findings reveal several challenges practitioners face in appropriately recruiting and incentivizing user auditors, scaffolding user audits, and deriving actionable insights from user-engaged audit reports. Furthermore, practitioners shared organizational obstacles to user-engaged auditing, surfacing a complex relationship between practitioners and user auditors. Based on these findings, we discuss opportunities for future HCI research to help realize the potential (and the mitigate risks) of user-engaged auditing in industry practice.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Zeno: An Interactive Framework for Behavioral Evaluation of Machine Learning

Machine learning models with high accuracy on test data can still produce systematic failures, such as harmful biases and safety issues, when deployed in the real world. To detect and mitigate such failures, practitioners run behavioral evaluation of their models, checking model outputs for specific types of inputs. Behavioral evaluation is important but challenging, requiring that practitioners discover real-world patterns and validate systematic failures. We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with ML practitioners to better understand the challenges of behavioral evaluation and found that it is a collaborative, use-case-first process that is not adequately supported by existing task- and domain-specific tools. Using these findings, we designed Zeno, a general-purpose framework for visualizing and testing AI systems across diverse use cases. In four case studies with participants using Zeno on real-world models, we found that practitioners were able to reproduce previous manual analyses and discover new systematic failures.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Toward Supporting Perceptual Complementarity in Human-AI Collaboration via Reflection on Unobservables

In many real world contexts, successful human-AI collaboration requires humans to productively integrate complementary sources of information into AI-informed decisions. However, in practice human decision-makers often lack understanding of what information an AI model has access to in relation to themselves. There are few available guidelines regarding how to effectively communicate about unobservables: features that may influence the outcome, but which are unavailable to the model. In this work, we conducted an online experiment to understand whether and how explicitly communicating potentially relevant unobservables influences how people integrate model outputs and unobservables when making predictions. Our findings indicate that presenting prompts about unobservables can change how humans integrate model outputs and unobservables, but do not necessarily lead to improved performance. Furthermore, the impacts of these prompts can vary depending on decision-makers' prior domain expertise. We conclude by discussing implications for future research and design of AI-based decision support tools.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Exploring How Machine Learning Practitioners (Try To) Use Fairness Toolkits

Recent years have seen the development of many open-source ML fairness toolkits aimed at helping ML practitioners assess and address unfairness in their systems. However, there has been little research investigating how ML practitioners actually use these toolkits in practice. In this paper, we conducted the first in-depth empirical exploration of how industry practitioners (try to) work with existing fairness toolkits. In particular, we conducted think-aloud interviews to understand how participants learn about and use fairness toolkits, and explored the generality of our findings through an anonymous online survey. We identified several opportunities for fairness toolkits to better address practitioner needs and scaffold them in using toolkits effectively and responsibly. Based on these findings, we highlight implications for the design of future open-source fairness toolkits that can support practitioners in better contextualizing, communicating, and collaborating around ML fairness efforts.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Towards a Learner-Centered Explainable AI: Lessons from the learning sciences

In this short paper, we argue for a refocusing of XAI around human learning goals. Drawing upon approaches and theories from the learning sciences, we propose a framework for the learner-centered design and evaluation of XAI systems. We illustrate our framework through an ongoing case study in the context of AI-augmented social work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Team Learning as a Lens for Designing Human-AI Co-Creative Systems

Generative, ML-driven interactive systems have the potential to change how people interact with computers in creative processes - turning tools into co-creators. However, it is still unclear how we might achieve effective human-AI collaboration in open-ended task domains. There are several known challenges around communication in the interaction with ML-driven systems. An overlooked aspect in the design of co-creative systems is how users can be better supported in learning to collaborate with such systems. Here we reframe human-AI collaboration as a learning problem: Inspired by research on team learning, we hypothesize that similar learning strategies that apply to human-human teams might also increase the collaboration effectiveness and quality of humans working with co-creative generative systems. In this position paper, we aim to promote team learning as a lens for designing more effective co-creative human-AI collaboration and emphasize collaboration process quality as a goal for co-creative systems. Furthermore, we outline a preliminary schematic framework for embedding team learning support in co-creative AI systems. We conclude by proposing a research agenda and posing open questions for further study on supporting people in learning to collaborate with generative AI systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Imagining new futures beyond predictive systems in child welfare: A qualitative study with impacted stakeholders

Child welfare agencies across the United States are turning to data-driven predictive technologies (commonly called predictive analytics) which use government administrative data to assist workers' decision-making. While some prior work has explored impacted stakeholders' concerns with current uses of data-driven predictive risk models (PRMs), less work has asked stakeholders whether such tools ought to be used in the first place. In this work, we conducted a set of seven design workshops with 35 stakeholders who have been impacted by the child welfare system or who work in it to understand their beliefs and concerns around PRMs, and to engage them in imagining new uses of data and technologies in the child welfare system. We found that participants worried current PRMs perpetuate or exacerbate existing problems in child welfare. Participants suggested new ways to use data and data-driven tools to better support impacted communities and suggested paths to mitigate possible harms of these tools. Participants also suggested low-tech or no-tech alternatives to PRMs to address problems in child welfare. Our study sheds light on how researchers and designers can work in solidarity with impacted communities, possibly to circumvent or oppose child welfare agencies.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Extended Analysis of "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions"

This is an extended analysis of our paper "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions," which looks at racial disparities in the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, an algorithm used to help child welfare workers decide which families the Allegheny County child welfare agency (CYF) should investigate. On April 27, 2022, Allegheny County CYF sent us an updated dataset and pre-processing steps. In this extended analysis of our paper, we show the results from re-running all quantitative analyses in our paper with this new data and pre-processing. We find that our main findings in our paper were robust to changes in data and pre-processing. Particularly, the Allegheny Family Screening Tool on its own would have made more racially disparate decisions than workers, and workers used the tool to decrease those algorithmic disparities. Some minor results changed, including a slight increase in the screen-in rate from before to after the implementation of the AFST reported our paper.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Support

AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers' experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. Overall, we observe how workers' reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS's capabilities and limitations relative to their own, (3) organizational pressures and incentives around the use of the ADS, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives. Drawing upon these findings, we discuss design implications towards supporting more effective human-AI decision-making.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Characterizing Human Explanation Strategies to Inform the Design of Explainable AI for Building Damage Assessment

Explainable AI (XAI) is a promising means of supporting human-AI collaborations for high-stakes visual detection tasks, such as damage detection tasks from satellite imageries, as fully-automated approaches are unlikely to be perfectly safe and reliable. However, most existing XAI techniques are not informed by the understandings of task-specific needs of humans for explanations. Thus, we took a first step toward understanding what forms of XAI humans require in damage detection tasks. We conducted an online crowdsourced study to understand how people explain their own assessments, when evaluating the severity of building damage based on satellite imagery. Through the study with 60 crowdworkers, we surfaced six major strategies that humans utilize to explain their visual damage assessments. We present implications of our findings for the design of XAI methods for such visual detection contexts, and discuss opportunities for future research.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Everyday algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors

A growing body of literature has proposed formal approaches to audit algorithmic systems for biased and harmful behaviors. While formal auditing approaches have been greatly impactful, they often suffer major blindspots, with critical issues surfacing only in the context of everyday use once systems are deployed. Recent years have seen many cases in which everyday users of algorithmic systems detect and raise awareness about harmful behaviors that they encounter in the course of their everyday interactions with these systems. However, to date little academic attention has been granted to these bottom-up, user-driven auditing processes. In this paper, we propose and explore the concept of everyday algorithm auditing, a process in which users detect, understand, and interrogate problematic machine behaviors via their day-to-day interactions with algorithmic systems. We argue that everyday users are powerful in surfacing problematic machine behaviors that may elude detection via more centrally-organized forms of auditing, regardless of users' knowledge about the underlying algorithms. We analyze several real-world cases of everyday algorithm auditing, drawing lessons from these cases for the design of future platforms and tools that facilitate such auditing behaviors. Finally, we discuss work that lies ahead, toward bridging the gaps between formal auditing approaches and the organic auditing behaviors that emerge in everyday use of algorithmic systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Designing for human-AI complementarity in K-12 education

Recent work has explored how complementary strengths of humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems might be productively combined. However, successful forms of human-AI partnership have rarely been demonstrated in real-world settings. We present the iterative design and evaluation of Lumilo, smart glasses that help teachers help their students in AI-supported classrooms by presenting real-time analytics about students' learning, metacognition, and behavior. Results from a field study conducted in K-12 classrooms indicate that students learn more when teachers and AI tutors work together during class. We discuss implications of this research for the design of human-AI partnerships. We argue for more participatory approaches to research and design in this area, in which practitioners and other stakeholders are deeply, meaningfully involved throughout the process. Furthermore, we advocate for theory-building and for principled approaches to the study of human-AI decision-making in real-world contexts.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Equity and Artificial Intelligence in Education: Will "AIEd" Amplify or Alleviate Inequities in Education?

The development of educational AI (AIEd) systems has often been motivated by their potential to promote educational equity and reduce achievement gaps across different groups of learners -- for example, by scaling up the benefits of one-on-one human tutoring to a broader audience, or by filling gaps in existing educational services. Given these noble intentions, why might AIEd systems have inequitable impacts in practice? In this chapter, we discuss four lenses that can be used to examine how and why AIEd systems risk amplifying existing inequities. Building from these lenses, we then outline possible paths towards more equitable futures for AIEd, while highlighting debates surrounding each proposal. In doing so, we hope to provoke new conversations around the design of equitable AIEd, and to push ongoing conversations in the field forward.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2020

The TA Framework: Designing Real-time Teaching Augmentation for K-12 Classrooms

Recently, the HCI community has seen increased interest in the design of teaching augmentation (TA): tools that extend and complement teachers' pedagogical abilities during ongoing classroom activities. Examples of TA systems are emerging across multiple disciplines, taking various forms: e.g., ambient displays, wearables, or learning analytics dashboards. However, these diverse examples have not been analyzed together to derive more fundamental insights into the design of teaching augmentation. Addressing this opportunity, we broadly synthesize existing cases to propose the TA framework. Our framework specifies a rich design space in five dimensions, to support the design and analysis of teaching augmentation. We contextualize the framework using existing designs cases, to surface underlying design trade-offs: for example, balancing actionability of presented information with teachers' needs for professional autonomy, or balancing unobtrusiveness with informativeness in the design of TA systems. Applying the TA framework, we identify opportunities for future research and design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2019

Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?

The potential for machine learning (ML) systems to amplify social inequities and unfairness is receiving increasing popular and academic attention. A surge of recent work has focused on the development of algorithmic tools to assess and mitigate such unfairness. If these tools are to have a positive impact on industry practice, however, it is crucial that their design be informed by an understanding of real-world needs. Through 35 semi-structured interviews and an anonymous survey of 267 ML practitioners, we conduct the first systematic investigation of commercial product teams' challenges and needs for support in developing fairer ML systems. We identify areas of alignment and disconnect between the challenges faced by industry practitioners and solutions proposed in the fair ML research literature. Based on these findings, we highlight directions for future ML and HCI research that will better address industry practitioners' needs.

cs.HC↗