arXiv subjects

Q. Vera Liao

Publications and source records attributed to Q. Vera Liao.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2022

Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective

Current literature and public discourse on "trust in AI" are often focused on the principles underlying trustworthy AI, with insufficient attention paid to how people develop trust. Given that AI systems differ in their level of trustworthiness, two open questions come to the fore: how should AI trustworthiness be responsibly communicated to ensure appropriate and equitable trust judgments by different users, and how can we protect users from deceptive attempts to earn their trust? We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH, which describes how trustworthiness is communicated in AI systems through trustworthiness cues and how those cues are processed by people to make trust judgments. Besides AI-generated content, we highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. By bringing to light the variety of users' cognitive processes to make trust judgments and their potential limitations, we urge technology creators to make conscious decisions in choosing reliable trustworthiness cues for target users and, as an industry, to regulate this space and prevent malicious use. Towards these goals, we define the concepts of warranted trustworthiness cues and expensive trustworthiness cues, and propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use. We present a hypothetical use case to illustrate how practitioners can use MATCH to design AI systems responsibly, and discuss future directions for research and industry efforts aimed at promoting responsible trust in AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Human-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderation

Despite impressive performance in many benchmark datasets, AI models can still make mistakes, especially among out-of-distribution examples. It remains an open question how such imperfect models can be used effectively in collaboration with humans. Prior work has focused on AI assistance that helps people make individual high-stakes decisions, which is not scalable for a large amount of relatively low-stakes decisions, e.g., moderating social media comments. Instead, we propose conditional delegation as an alternative paradigm for human-AI collaboration where humans create rules to indicate trustworthy regions of a model. Using content moderation as a testbed, we develop novel interfaces to assist humans in creating conditional delegation rules and conduct a randomized experiment with two datasets to simulate in-distribution and out-of-distribution scenarios. Our study demonstrates the promise of conditional delegation in improving model performance and provides insights into design for this novel paradigm, including the effect of AI explanations.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiences

In recent years, the field of explainable AI (XAI) has produced a vast collection of algorithms, providing a useful toolbox for researchers and practitioners to build XAI applications. With the rich application opportunities, explainability is believed to have moved beyond a demand by data scientists or researchers to comprehend the models they develop, to an essential requirement for people to trust and adopt AI deployed in numerous domains. However, explainability is an inherently human-centric property and the field is starting to embrace human-centered approaches. Human-computer interaction (HCI) research and user experience (UX) design in this area are becoming increasingly important. In this chapter, we begin with a high-level overview of the technical landscape of XAI algorithms, then selectively survey our own and other recent HCI works that take human-centered approaches to design, evaluate, and provide conceptual and methodological tools for XAI. We ask the question "what are human-centered approaches doing for XAI" and highlight three roles that they play in shaping XAI technologies by helping navigate, assess and expand the XAI toolbox: to drive technical choices by users' explainability needs, to uncover pitfalls of existing XAI methods and inform new methods, and to provide conceptual frameworks for human-compatible XAI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design

What does it mean for a generative AI model to be explainable? The emergent discipline of explainable AI (XAI) has made great strides in helping people understand discriminative models. Less attention has been paid to generative models that produce artifacts, rather than decisions, as output. Meanwhile, generative AI (GenAI) technologies are maturing and being applied to application domains such as software engineering. Using scenario-based design and question-driven XAI design approaches, we explore users' explainability needs for GenAI in three software engineering use cases: natural language to code, code translation, and code auto-completion. We conducted 9 workshops with 43 software engineers in which real examples from state-of-the-art generative AI models were used to elicit users' explainability needs. Drawing from prior work, we also propose 4 types of XAI features for GenAI for code and gathered additional design ideas from participants. Our work explores explainability needs for GenAI for code and demonstrates how human-centered approaches can drive the technical development of XAI in novel domains.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: A Survey of Empirical Studies

As AI systems demonstrate increasingly strong predictive performance, their adoption has grown in numerous domains. However, in high-stakes domains such as criminal justice and healthcare, full automation is often not desirable due to safety, ethical, and legal concerns, yet fully manual approaches can be inaccurate and time consuming. As a result, there is growing interest in the research community to augment human decision making with AI assistance. Besides developing AI technologies for this purpose, the emerging field of human-AI decision making must embrace empirical approaches to form a foundational understanding of how humans interact and work with AI to make decisions. To invite and help structure research efforts towards a science of understanding and improving human-AI decision making, we survey recent literature of empirical human-subject studies on this topic. We summarize the study design choices made in over 100 papers in three important aspects: (1) decision tasks, (2) AI models and AI assistance elements, and (3) evaluation metrics. For each aspect, we summarize current trends, discuss gaps in current practices of the field, and make a list of recommendations for future research. Our survey highlights the need to develop common frameworks to account for the design and research spaces of human-AI decision making, so that researchers can make rigorous choices in study design, and the research community can build on each other's work and produce generalizable scientific knowledge. We also hope this survey will serve as a bridge for HCI and AI communities to work together to mutually shape the empirical science and computational technologies for human-AI decision making.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

AI Explainability 360: Impact and Design

As artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms become increasingly prevalent in society, multiple stakeholders are calling for these algorithms to provide explanations. At the same time, these stakeholders, whether they be affected citizens, government regulators, domain experts, or system developers, have different explanation needs. To address these needs, in 2019, we created AI Explainability 360 (Arya et al. 2020), an open source software toolkit featuring ten diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods and two evaluation metrics. This paper examines the impact of the toolkit with several case studies, statistics, and community feedback. The different ways in which users have experienced AI Explainability 360 have resulted in multiple types of impact and improvements in multiple metrics, highlighted by the adoption of the toolkit by the independent LF AI & Data Foundation. The paper also describes the flexible design of the toolkit, examples of its use, and the significant educational material and documentation available to its users.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Question-Driven Design Process for Explainable AI User Experiences

A pervasive design issue of AI systems is their explainability--how to provide appropriate information to help users understand the AI. The technical field of explainable AI (XAI) has produced a rich toolbox of techniques. Designers are now tasked with the challenges of how to select the most suitable XAI techniques and translate them into UX solutions. Informed by our previous work studying design challenges around XAI UX, this work proposes a design process to tackle these challenges. We review our and related prior work to identify requirements that the process should fulfill, and accordingly, propose a Question-Driven Design Process that grounds the user needs, choices of XAI techniques, design, and evaluation of XAI UX all in the user questions. We provide a mapping guide between prototypical user questions and exemplars of XAI techniques to reframe the technical space of XAI, also serving as boundary objects to support collaboration between designers and AI engineers. We demonstrate it with a use case of designing XAI for healthcare adverse events prediction, and discuss lessons learned for tackling design challenges of AI systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences

A surge of interest in explainable AI (XAI) has led to a vast collection of algorithmic work on the topic. While many recognize the necessity to incorporate explainability features in AI systems, how to address real-world user needs for understanding AI remains an open question. By interviewing 20 UX and design practitioners working on various AI products, we seek to identify gaps between the current XAI algorithmic work and practices to create explainable AI products. To do so, we develop an algorithm-informed XAI question bank in which user needs for explainability are represented as prototypical questions users might ask about the AI, and use it as a study probe. Our work contributes insights into the design space of XAI, informs efforts to support design practices in this space, and identifies opportunities for future XAI work. We also provide an extended XAI question bank and discuss how it can be used for creating user-centered XAI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Uncertainty Quantification 360: A Holistic Toolkit for Quantifying and Communicating the Uncertainty of AI

In this paper, we describe an open source Python toolkit named Uncertainty Quantification 360 (UQ360) for the uncertainty quantification of AI models. The goal of this toolkit is twofold: first, to provide a broad range of capabilities to streamline as well as foster the common practices of quantifying, evaluating, improving, and communicating uncertainty in the AI application development lifecycle; second, to encourage further exploration of UQ's connections to other pillars of trustworthy AI such as fairness and transparency through the dissemination of latest research and education materials. Beyond the Python package (\url{https://github.com/IBM/UQ360}), we have developed an interactive experience (\url{http://uq360.mybluemix.net}) and guidance materials as educational tools to aid researchers and developers in producing and communicating high-quality uncertainties in an effective manner.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

A Multistakeholder Approach Towards Evaluating AI Transparency Mechanisms

Given that there are a variety of stakeholders involved in, and affected by, decisions from machine learning (ML) models, it is important to consider that different stakeholders have different transparency needs. Previous work found that the majority of deployed transparency mechanisms primarily serve technical stakeholders. In our work, we want to investigate how well transparency mechanisms might work in practice for a more diverse set of stakeholders by conducting a large-scale, mixed-methods user study across a range of organizations, within a particular industry such as health care, criminal justice, or content moderation. In this paper, we outline the setup for our study.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty

Algorithmic transparency entails exposing system properties to various stakeholders for purposes that include understanding, improving, and contesting predictions. Until now, most research into algorithmic transparency has predominantly focused on explainability. Explainability attempts to provide reasons for a machine learning model's behavior to stakeholders. However, understanding a model's specific behavior alone might not be enough for stakeholders to gauge whether the model is wrong or lacks sufficient knowledge to solve the task at hand. In this paper, we argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. First, we discuss methods for assessing uncertainty. Then, we characterize how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. Finally, we outline methods for displaying uncertainty to stakeholders and recommend how to collect information required for incorporating uncertainty into existing ML pipelines. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness. We aim to encourage researchers and practitioners to measure, communicate, and use uncertainty as a form of transparency.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

Model LineUpper: Supporting Interactive Model Comparison at Multiple Levels for AutoML

Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) is a rapidly growing set of technologies that automate the model development pipeline by searching model space and generating candidate models. A critical, final step of AutoML is human selection of a final model from dozens of candidates. In current AutoML systems, selection is supported only by performance metrics. Prior work has shown that in practice, people evaluate ML models based on additional criteria, such as the way a model makes predictions. Comparison may happen at multiple levels, from types of errors, to feature importance, to how the model makes predictions of specific instances. We developed \tool{} to support interactive model comparison for AutoML by integrating multiple Explainable AI (XAI) and visualization techniques. We conducted a user study in which we both evaluated the system and used it as a technology probe to understand how users perform model comparison in an AutoML system. We discuss design implications for utilizing XAI techniques for model comparison and supporting the unique needs of data scientists in comparing AutoML models.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Facilitating Knowledge Sharing from Domain Experts to Data Scientists for Building NLP Models

Data scientists face a steep learning curve in understanding a new domain for which they want to build machine learning (ML) models. While input from domain experts could offer valuable help, such input is often limited, expensive, and generally not in a form readily consumable by a model development pipeline. In this paper, we propose Ziva, a framework to guide domain experts in sharing essential domain knowledge to data scientists for building NLP models. With Ziva, experts are able to distill and share their domain knowledge using domain concept extractors and five types of label justification over a representative data sample. The design of Ziva is informed by preliminary interviews with data scientists, in order to understand current practices of domain knowledge acquisition process for ML development projects. To assess our design, we run a mix-method case-study to evaluate how Ziva can facilitate interaction of domain experts and data scientists. Our results highlight that (1) domain experts are able to use Ziva to provide rich domain knowledge, while maintaining low mental load and stress levels; and (2) data scientists find Ziva's output helpful for learning essential information about the domain, offering scalability of information, and lowering the burden on domain experts to share knowledge. We conclude this work by experimenting with building NLP models using the Ziva output by our case study.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Expanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systems

As AI-powered systems increasingly mediate consequential decision-making, their explainability is critical for end-users to take informed and accountable actions. Explanations in human-human interactions are socially-situated. AI systems are often socio-organizationally embedded. However, Explainable AI (XAI) approaches have been predominantly algorithm-centered. We take a developmental step towards socially-situated XAI by introducing and exploring Social Transparency (ST), a sociotechnically informed perspective that incorporates the socio-organizational context into explaining AI-mediated decision-making. To explore ST conceptually, we conducted interviews with 29 AI users and practitioners grounded in a speculative design scenario. We suggested constitutive design elements of ST and developed a conceptual framework to unpack ST's effect and implications at the technical, decision-making, and organizational level. The framework showcases how ST can potentially calibrate trust in AI, improve decision-making, facilitate organizational collective actions, and cultivate holistic explainability. Our work contributes to the discourse of Human-Centered XAI by expanding the design space of XAI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

How Much Automation Does a Data Scientist Want?

Data science and machine learning (DS/ML) are at the heart of the recent advancements of many Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications. There is an active research thread in AI, \autoai, that aims to develop systems for automating end-to-end the DS/ML Lifecycle. However, do DS and ML workers really want to automate their DS/ML workflow? To answer this question, we first synthesize a human-centered AutoML framework with 6 User Role/Personas, 10 Stages and 43 Sub-Tasks, 5 Levels of Automation, and 5 Types of Explanation, through reviewing research literature and marketing reports. Secondly, we use the framework to guide the design of an online survey study with 217 DS/ML workers who had varying degrees of experience, and different user roles "matching" to our 6 roles/personas. We found that different user personas participated in distinct stages of the lifecycle -- but not all stages. Their desired levels of automation and types of explanation for AutoML also varied significantly depending on the DS/ML stage and the user persona. Based on the survey results, we argue there is no rationale from user needs for complete automation of the end-to-end DS/ML lifecycle. We propose new next steps for user-controlled DS/ML automation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local Explanations Impact Annotator Experience

The wide adoption of Machine Learning technologies has created a rapidly growing demand for people who can train ML models. Some advocated the term "machine teacher" to refer to the role of people who inject domain knowledge into ML models. One promising learning paradigm is Active Learning (AL), by which the model intelligently selects instances to query the machine teacher for labels. However, in current AL settings, the human-AI interface remains minimal and opaque. We begin considering AI explanations as a core element of the human-AI interface for teaching machines. When a human student learns, it is a common pattern to present one's own reasoning and solicit feedback from the teacher. When a ML model learns and still makes mistakes, the human teacher should be able to understand the reasoning underlying the mistakes. When the model matures, the machine teacher should be able to recognize its progress in order to trust and feel confident about their teaching outcome. Toward this vision, we propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by introducing techniques from the recently surging field of explainable AI (XAI) into an AL setting. We conducted an empirical study comparing the model learning outcomes, feedback content and experience with XAL, to that of traditional AL and coactive learning (providing the model's prediction without the explanation). Our study shows benefits of AI explanation as interfaces for machine teaching--supporting trust calibration and enabling rich forms of teaching feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect with the model judgment and cognitive workload. Our study also reveals important individual factors that mediate a machine teacher's reception to AI explanations, including task knowledge, AI experience and need for cognition. By reflecting on the results, we suggest future directions and design implications for XAL.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2020

Active Learning++: Incorporating Annotator's Rationale using Local Model Explanation

We propose a new active learning (AL) framework, Active Learning++, which can utilize an annotator's labels as well as its rationale. Annotators can provide their rationale for choosing a label by ranking input features based on their importance for a given query. To incorporate this additional input, we modified the disagreement measure for a bagging-based Query by Committee (QBC) sampling strategy. Instead of weighing all committee models equally to select the next instance, we assign higher weight to the committee model with higher agreement with the annotator's ranking. Specifically, we generated a feature importance-based local explanation for each committee model. The similarity score between feature rankings provided by the annotator and the local model explanation is used to assign a weight to each corresponding committee model. This approach is applicable to any kind of ML model using model-agnostic techniques to generate local explanation such as LIME. With a simulation study, we show that our framework significantly outperforms a QBC based vanilla AL framework.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

Measuring Social Biases of Crowd Workers using Counterfactual Queries

Social biases based on gender, race, etc. have been shown to pollute machine learning (ML) pipeline predominantly via biased training datasets. Crowdsourcing, a popular cost-effective measure to gather labeled training datasets, is not immune to the inherent social biases of crowd workers. To ensure such social biases aren't passed onto the curated datasets, it's important to know how biased each crowd worker is. In this work, we propose a new method based on counterfactual fairness to quantify the degree of inherent social bias in each crowd worker. This extra information can be leveraged together with individual worker responses to curate a less biased dataset.

cs.HC↗