arXiv subjects

Timothée Schmude

Publications and source records attributed to Timothée Schmude.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Better Together? The Role of Explanations in Supporting Novices in Individual and Collective Deliberations about AI

Deploying AI systems in public institutions can have far-reaching consequences for many people, making it a matter of public interest. Providing opportunities for stakeholders to come together, understand these systems, and debate their merits and harms is thus essential. Explainable AI often focuses on individuals, but deliberation benefits from group settings, which are underexplored. To address this gap, we present findings from an interview study with 8 focus groups and 12 individuals. Our findings provide insight into how explanations support AI novices in deliberating alone and in groups. Participants used modular explanations with four information categories to solve tasks and decide about an AI system's deployment. We found that the explanations supported groups in creating shared understanding and in finding arguments for and against the system's deployment. In comparison, individual participants engaged with explanations in more depth and performed better in the study tasks, but missed an exchange with others. Based on our findings, we provide suggestions on how explanations should be designed to work in group settings and describe their potential use in real-world contexts. With this, our contributions inform XAI research that aims to enable AI novices to understand and deliberate AI systems in the public sector.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Two Means to an End Goal: Connecting Explainability and Contestability in the Regulation of Public Sector AI

Explainability and its emerging counterpart contestability have become important normative and design principles for trustworthy AI as they enable users and subjects to understand and challenge AI decisions. However, realizing these principles is difficult, as they assume different meanings in technical, legal, and organizational dimensions of AI regulation. To resolve this conceptual polysemy, in this paper, we present the findings of an interview study with 14 experts to examine the intersection and implementation of explainability and contestability, and their understanding in different research communities. We outline differentiations between descriptive and normative explainability, judicial and non-judicial channels of contestation, and individual and collective contestation action. We further describe the main points of friction in the realization of both principles, including the alignment between top-down and bottom-up regulation, the assignment of responsibility, and the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Lastly, we formulate three recommendations for AI policy to implement both principles through a Regulation by Design perspective. We believe our contributions can inform policy-making and regulation of these core principles and enable more effective and equitable design, development, and deployment of trustworthy public AI systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Information That Matters: Exploring Information Needs of People Affected by Algorithmic Decisions

Every AI system that makes decisions about people has a group of stakeholders that are personally affected by these decisions. However, explanations of AI systems rarely address the information needs of this stakeholder group, who often are AI novices. This creates a gap between conveyed information and information that matters to those who are impacted by the system's decisions, such as domain experts and decision subjects. To address this, we present the "XAI Novice Question Bank," an extension of the XAI Question Bank containing a catalog of information needs from AI novices in two use cases: employment prediction and health monitoring. The catalog covers the categories of data, system context, system usage, and system specifications. We gathered information needs through task-based interviews where participants asked questions about two AI systems to decide on their adoption and received verbal explanations in response. Our analysis showed that participants' confidence increased after receiving explanations but that their understanding faced challenges. These included difficulties in locating information and in assessing their own understanding, as well as attempts to outsource understanding. Additionally, participants' prior perceptions of the systems' risks and benefits influenced their information needs. Participants who perceived high risks sought explanations about the intentions behind a system's deployment, while those who perceived low risks rather asked about the system's operation. Our work aims to support the inclusion of AI novices in explainability efforts by highlighting their information needs, aims, and challenges. We summarize our findings as five key implications that can inform the design of future explanations for lay stakeholder audiences.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Challenging the Human-in-the-loop in Algorithmic Decision-making

We discuss the role of humans in algorithmic decision-making (ADM) for socially relevant problems from a technical and philosophical perspective. In particular, we illustrate tensions arising from diverse expectations, values, and constraints by and on the humans involved. To this end, we assume that a strategic decision-maker (SDM) introduces ADM to optimize strategic and societal goals while the algorithms' recommended actions are overseen by a practical decision-maker (PDM) - a specific human-in-the-loop - who makes the final decisions. While the PDM is typically assumed to be a corrective, it can counteract the realization of the SDM's desired goals and societal values not least because of a misalignment of these values and unmet information needs of the PDM. This has significant implications for the distribution of power between the stakeholders in ADM, their constraints, and information needs. In particular, we emphasize the overseeing PDM's role as a potential political and ethical decision maker, who acts expected to balance strategic, value-driven objectives and on-the-ground individual decisions and constraints. We demonstrate empirically, on a machine learning benchmark dataset, the significant impact an overseeing PDM's decisions can have even if the PDM is constrained to performing only a limited amount of actions differing from the algorithms' recommendations. To ensure that the SDM's intended values are realized, the PDM needs to be provided with appropriate information conveyed through tailored explanations and its role must be characterized clearly. Our findings emphasize the need for an in-depth discussion of the role and power of the PDM and challenge the often-taken view that just including a human-in-the-loop in ADM ensures the 'correct' and 'ethical' functioning of the system.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Applying Interdisciplinary Frameworks to Understand Algorithmic Decision-Making

We argue that explanations for "algorithmic decision-making" (ADM) systems can profit by adopting practices that are already used in the learning sciences. We shortly introduce the importance of explaining ADM systems, give a brief overview of approaches drawing from other disciplines to improve explanations, and present the results of our qualitative task-based study incorporating the "six facets of understanding" framework. We close with questions guiding the discussion of how future studies can leverage an interdisciplinary approach.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

On the Impact of Explanations on Understanding of Algorithmic Decision-Making

Ethical principles for algorithms are gaining importance as more and more stakeholders are affected by "high-risk" algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems. Understanding how these systems work enables stakeholders to make informed decisions and to assess the systems' adherence to ethical values. Explanations are a promising way to create understanding, but current explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) research does not always consider existent theories on how understanding is formed and evaluated. In this work, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of understanding by conducting a qualitative task-based study with 30 participants, including users and affected stakeholders. We use three explanation modalities (textual, dialogue, and interactive) to explain a "high-risk" ADM system to participants and analyse their responses both inductively and deductively, using the "six facets of understanding" framework by Wiggins & McTighe. Our findings indicate that the "six facets" framework is a promising approach to analyse participants' thought processes in understanding, providing categories for both rational and emotional understanding. We further introduce the "dialogue" modality as a valid explanation approach to increase participant engagement and interaction with the "explainer", allowing for more insight into their understanding in the process. Our analysis further suggests that individuality in understanding affects participants' perceptions of algorithmic fairness, demonstrating the interdependence between understanding and ADM assessment that previous studies have outlined. We posit that drawing from theories on learning and understanding like the "six facets" and leveraging explanation modalities can guide XAI research to better suit explanations to learning processes of individuals and consequently enable their assessment of ethical values of ADM systems.

cs.HC↗