Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Ujwal Gadiraju

Publications and source records attributed to Ujwal Gadiraju.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
arXiv2024

To Err Is AI! Debugging as an Intervention to Facilitate Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems

Powerful predictive AI systems have demonstrated great potential in augmenting human decision making. Recent empirical work has argued that the vision for optimal human-AI collaboration requires 'appropriate reliance' of humans on AI systems. However, accurately estimating the trustworthiness of AI advice at the instance level is quite challenging, especially in the absence of performance feedback pertaining to the AI system. In practice, the performance disparity of machine learning models on out-of-distribution data makes the dataset-specific performance feedback unreliable in human-AI collaboration. Inspired by existing literature on critical thinking and a critical mindset, we propose the use of debugging an AI system as an intervention to foster appropriate reliance. In this paper, we explore whether a critical evaluation of AI performance within a debugging setting can better calibrate users' assessment of an AI system and lead to more appropriate reliance. Through a quantitative empirical study (N = 234), we found that our proposed debugging intervention does not work as expected in facilitating appropriate reliance. Instead, we observe a decrease in reliance on the AI system after the intervention -- potentially resulting from an early exposure to the AI system's weakness. We explore the dynamics of user confidence and user estimation of AI trustworthiness across groups with different performance levels to help explain how inappropriate reliance patterns occur. Our findings have important implications for designing effective interventions to facilitate appropriate reliance and better human-AI collaboration.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2024

"Hi. I'm Molly, Your Virtual Interviewer!" -- Exploring the Impact of Race and Gender in AI-powered Virtual Interview Experiences

The persistent issue of human bias in recruitment processes poses a formidable challenge to achieving equitable hiring practices, particularly when influenced by demographic characteristics such as gender and race of both interviewers and candidates. Asynchronous Video Interviews (AVIs), powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI), have emerged as innovative tools aimed at streamlining the application screening process while potentially mitigating the impact of such biases. These AI-driven platforms present an opportunity to customize the demographic features of virtual interviewers to align with diverse applicant preferences, promising a more objective and fair evaluation. Despite their growing adoption, the implications of virtual interviewer identities on candidate experiences within AVIs remain underexplored. We aim to address this research and empirical gap in this paper. To this end, we carried out a comprehensive between-subjects study involving 218 participants across six distinct experimental conditions, manipulating the gender and skin color of an AI virtual interviewer agent. Our empirical analysis revealed that while the demographic attributes of the agents did not significantly influence the overall experience of interviewees, variations in the interviewees' demographics significantly altered their perception of the AVI process. Further, we uncovered that the mediating roles of Social Presence and Perception of the virtual interviewer critically affect interviewees' perceptions of fairness (+), privacy (-), and impression management (+).

cs.HC↗
arXiv2024

From Stem to Stern: Contestability Along AI Value Chains

This workshop will grow and consolidate a community of interdisciplinary CSCW researchers focusing on the topic of contestable AI. As an outcome of the workshop, we will synthesize the most pressing opportunities and challenges for contestability along AI value chains in the form of a research roadmap. This roadmap will help shape and inspire imminent work in this field. Considering the length and depth of AI value chains, it will especially spur discussions around the contestability of AI systems along various sites of such chains. The workshop will serve as a platform for dialogue and demonstrations of concrete, successful, and unsuccessful examples of AI systems that (could or should) have been contested, to identify requirements, obstacles, and opportunities for designing and deploying contestable AI in various contexts. This will be held primarily as an in-person workshop, with some hybrid accommodation. The day will consist of individual presentations and group activities to stimulate ideation and inspire broad reflections on the field of contestable AI. Our aim is to facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue by bringing together researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to foster the design and deployment of contestable AI.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2024

Everything We Hear: Towards Tackling Misinformation in Podcasts

Advances in generative AI, the proliferation of large multimodal models (LMMs), and democratized open access to these technologies have direct implications for the production and diffusion of misinformation. In this prequel, we address tackling misinformation in the unique and increasingly popular context of podcasts. The rise of podcasts as a popular medium for disseminating information across diverse topics necessitates a proactive strategy to combat the spread of misinformation. Inspired by the proven effectiveness of \textit{auditory alerts} in contexts like collision alerts for drivers and error pings in mobile phones, our work envisions the application of auditory alerts as an effective tool to tackle misinformation in podcasts. We propose the integration of suitable auditory alerts to notify listeners of potential misinformation within the podcasts they are listening to, in real-time and without hampering listening experiences. We identify several opportunities and challenges in this path and aim to provoke novel conversations around instruments, methods, and measures to tackle misinformation in podcasts.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2024

An Empirical Exploration of Trust Dynamics in LLM Supply Chains

With the widespread proliferation of AI systems, trust in AI is an important and timely topic to navigate. Researchers so far have largely employed a myopic view of this relationship. In particular, a limited number of relevant trustors (e.g., end-users) and trustees (i.e., AI systems) have been considered, and empirical explorations have remained in laboratory settings, potentially overlooking factors that impact human-AI relationships in the real world. In this paper, we argue for broadening the scope of studies addressing `trust in AI' by accounting for the complex and dynamic supply chains that AI systems result from. AI supply chains entail various technical artifacts that diverse individuals, organizations, and stakeholders interact with, in a variety of ways. We present insights from an in-situ, empirical study of LLM supply chains. Our work reveals additional types of trustors and trustees and new factors impacting their trust relationships. These relationships were found to be central to the development and adoption of LLMs, but they can also be the terrain for uncalibrated trust and reliance on untrustworthy LLMs. Based on these findings, we discuss the implications for research on `trust in AI'. We highlight new research opportunities and challenges concerning the appropriate study of inter-actor relationships across the supply chain and the development of calibrated trust and meaningful reliance behaviors. We also question the meaning of building trust in the LLM supply chain.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2024

Understanding Stakeholders' Perceptions and Needs Across the LLM Supply Chain

Explainability and transparency of AI systems are undeniably important, leading to several research studies and tools addressing them. Existing works fall short of accounting for the diverse stakeholders of the AI supply chain who may differ in their needs and consideration of the facets of explainability and transparency. In this paper, we argue for the need to revisit the inquiries of these vital constructs in the context of LLMs. To this end, we report on a qualitative study with 71 different stakeholders, where we explore the prevalent perceptions and needs around these concepts. This study not only confirms the importance of exploring the ``who'' in XAI and transparency for LLMs, but also reflects on best practices to do so while surfacing the often forgotten stakeholders and their information needs. Our insights suggest that researchers and practitioners should simultaneously clarify the ``who'' in considerations of explainability and transparency, the ``what'' in the information needs, and ``why'' they are needed to ensure responsible design and development across the LLM supply chain.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2024

Akal Badi ya Bias: An Exploratory Study of Gender Bias in Hindi Language Technology

Existing research in measuring and mitigating gender bias predominantly centers on English, overlooking the intricate challenges posed by non-English languages and the Global South. This paper presents the first comprehensive study delving into the nuanced landscape of gender bias in Hindi, the third most spoken language globally. Our study employs diverse mining techniques, computational models, field studies and sheds light on the limitations of current methodologies. Given the challenges faced with mining gender biased statements in Hindi using existing methods, we conducted field studies to bootstrap the collection of such sentences. Through field studies involving rural and low-income community women, we uncover diverse perceptions of gender bias, underscoring the necessity for context-specific approaches. This paper advocates for a community-centric research design, amplifying voices often marginalized in previous studies. Our findings not only contribute to the understanding of gender bias in Hindi but also establish a foundation for further exploration of Indic languages. By exploring the intricacies of this understudied context, we call for thoughtful engagement with gender bias, promoting inclusivity and equity in linguistic and cultural contexts beyond the Global North.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2023

The State of Pilot Study Reporting in Crowdsourcing: A Reflection on Best Practices and Guidelines

Pilot studies are an essential cornerstone of the design of crowdsourcing campaigns, yet they are often only mentioned in passing in the scholarly literature. A lack of details surrounding pilot studies in crowdsourcing research hinders the replication of studies and the reproduction of findings, stalling potential scientific advances. We conducted a systematic literature review on the current state of pilot study reporting at the intersection of crowdsourcing and HCI research. Our review of ten years of literature included 171 articles published in the proceedings of the Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (AAAI HCOMP) and the ACM Digital Library. We found that pilot studies in crowdsourcing research (i.e., crowd pilot studies) are often under-reported in the literature. Important details, such as the number of workers and rewards to workers, are often not reported. On the basis of our findings, we reflect on the current state of practice and formulate a set of best practice guidelines for reporting crowd pilot studies in crowdsourcing research. We also provide implications for the design of crowdsourcing platforms and make practical suggestions for supporting crowd pilot study reporting.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2023

Power-up! What Can Generative Models Do for Human Computation Workflows?

We are amidst an explosion of artificial intelligence research, particularly around large language models (LLMs). These models have a range of applications across domains like medicine, finance, commonsense knowledge graphs, and crowdsourcing. Investigation into LLMs as part of crowdsourcing workflows remains an under-explored space. The crowdsourcing research community has produced a body of work investigating workflows and methods for managing complex tasks using hybrid human-AI methods. Within crowdsourcing, the role of LLMs can be envisioned as akin to a cog in a larger wheel of workflows. From an empirical standpoint, little is currently understood about how LLMs can improve the effectiveness of crowdsourcing workflows and how such workflows can be evaluated. In this work, we present a vision for exploring this gap from the perspectives of various stakeholders involved in the crowdsourcing paradigm -- the task requesters, crowd workers, platforms, and end-users. We identify junctures in typical crowdsourcing workflows at which the introduction of LLMs can play a beneficial role and propose means to augment existing design patterns for crowd work.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2023

Generating Process-Centric Explanations to Enable Contestability in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Challenges and Opportunities

Human-AI decision making is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and explanations have been proposed to facilitate better Human-AI interactions. Recent research has investigated the positive impact of explanations on decision subjects' fairness perceptions in algorithmic decision-making. Despite these advances, most studies have captured the effect of explanations in isolation, considering explanations as ends in themselves, and reducing them to technical solutions provided through XAI methodologies. In this vision paper, we argue that the effect of explanations on fairness perceptions should rather be captured in relation to decision subjects' right to contest such decisions. Since contestable AI systems are open to human intervention throughout their lifecycle, contestability requires explanations that go beyond outcomes and also capture the rationales that led to the development and deployment of the algorithmic system in the first place. We refer to such explanations as process-centric explanations. In this work, we introduce the notion of process-centric explanations and describe some of the main challenges and research opportunities for generating and evaluating such explanations.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2023

Knowing About Knowing: An Illusion of Human Competence Can Hinder Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems

The dazzling promises of AI systems to augment humans in various tasks hinge on whether humans can appropriately rely on them. Recent research has shown that appropriate reliance is the key to achieving complementary team performance in AI-assisted decision making. This paper addresses an under-explored problem of whether the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) among people can hinder their appropriate reliance on AI systems. DKE is a metacognitive bias due to which less-competent individuals overestimate their own skill and performance. Through an empirical study (N = 249), we explored the impact of DKE on human reliance on an AI system, and whether such effects can be mitigated using a tutorial intervention that reveals the fallibility of AI advice, and exploiting logic units-based explanations to improve user understanding of AI advice. We found that participants who overestimate their performance tend to exhibit under-reliance on AI systems, which hinders optimal team performance. Logic units-based explanations did not help users in either improving the calibration of their competence or facilitating appropriate reliance. While the tutorial intervention was highly effective in helping users calibrate their self-assessment and facilitating appropriate reliance among participants with overestimated self-assessment, we found that it can potentially hurt the appropriate reliance of participants with underestimated self-assessment. Our work has broad implications on the design of methods to tackle user cognitive biases while facilitating appropriate reliance on AI systems. Our findings advance the current understanding of the role of self-assessment in shaping trust and reliance in human-AI decision making. This lays out promising future directions for relevant HCI research in this community.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2021

Assessing Viewpoint Diversity in Search Results Using Ranking Fairness Metrics

The way pages are ranked in search results influences whether the users of search engines are exposed to more homogeneous, or rather to more diverse viewpoints. However, this viewpoint diversity is not trivial to assess. In this paper we use existing and novel ranking fairness metrics to evaluate viewpoint diversity in search result rankings. We conduct a controlled simulation study that shows how ranking fairness metrics can be used for viewpoint diversity, how their outcome should be interpreted, and which metric is most suitable depending on the situation. This paper lays out important ground work for future research to measure and assess viewpoint diversity in real search result rankings.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2021

Towards Benchmarking the Utility of Explanations for Model Debugging

Post-hoc explanation methods are an important class of approaches that help understand the rationale underlying a trained model's decision. But how useful are they for an end-user towards accomplishing a given task? In this vision paper, we argue the need for a benchmark to facilitate evaluations of the utility of post-hoc explanation methods. As a first step to this end, we enumerate desirable properties that such a benchmark should possess for the task of debugging text classifiers. Additionally, we highlight that such a benchmark facilitates not only assessing the effectiveness of explanations but also their efficiency.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2021

Dissonance Between Human and Machine Understanding

Complex machine learning models are deployed in several critical domains including healthcare and autonomous vehicles nowadays, albeit as functional black boxes. Consequently, there has been a recent surge in interpreting decisions of such complex models in order to explain their actions to humans. Models that correspond to human interpretation of a task are more desirable in certain contexts and can help attribute liability, build trust, expose biases and in turn build better models. It is, therefore, crucial to understand how and which models conform to human understanding of tasks. In this paper, we present a large-scale crowdsourcing study that reveals and quantifies the dissonance between human and machine understanding, through the lens of an image classification task. In particular, we seek to answer the following questions: Which (well-performing) complex ML models are closer to humans in their use of features to make accurate predictions? How does task difficulty affect the feature selection capability of machines in comparison to humans? Are humans consistently better at selecting features that make image recognition more accurate? Our findings have important implications on human-machine collaboration, considering that a long term goal in the field of artificial intelligence is to make machines capable of learning and reasoning like humans.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2020

Bias in Data-driven AI Systems -- An Introductory Survey

AI-based systems are widely employed nowadays to make decisions that have far-reaching impacts on individuals and society. Their decisions might affect everyone, everywhere and anytime, entailing concerns about potential human rights issues. Therefore, it is necessary to move beyond traditional AI algorithms optimized for predictive performance and embed ethical and legal principles in their design, training and deployment to ensure social good while still benefiting from the huge potential of the AI technology. The goal of this survey is to provide a broad multi-disciplinary overview of the area of bias in AI systems, focusing on technical challenges and solutions as well as to suggest new research directions towards approaches well-grounded in a legal frame. In this survey, we focus on data-driven AI, as a large part of AI is powered nowadays by (big) data and powerful Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. If otherwise not specified, we use the general term bias to describe problems related to the gathering or processing of data that might result in prejudiced decisions on the bases of demographic features like race, sex, etc.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2019

Revealing the Role of User Moods in Struggling Search Tasks

User-centered approaches have been extensively studied and used in the area of struggling search. Related research has targeted key aspects of users such as user satisfaction or frustration, and search success or failure, using a variety of experimental methods including laboratory user studies, in-situ explicit feedback from searchers and by using crowdsourcing. Such studies are valuable in advancing the understanding of search difficulty from a user's perspective, and yield insights that can directly improve search systems and their evaluation. However, little is known about how user moods influence their interactions with a search system or their perception of struggling. In this work, we show that a user's own mood can systematically bias the user's perception, and experience while interacting with a search system and trying to satisfy an information need. People who are in activated-pleasant / activated-unpleasant moods tend to issue more queries than people in deactivated or neutral moods. Those in an unpleasant mood perceive a higher level of difficulty. Our insights extend the current understanding of struggling search tasks and have important implications on the design and evaluation of search systems supporting such tasks.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2018

Detecting, Understanding and Supporting Everyday Learning in Web Search

Web search is among the most ubiquitous online activities, commonly used to acquire new knowledge and to satisfy learning-related objectives through informational search sessions. The importance of learning as an outcome of web search has been recognized widely, leading to a variety of research at the intersection of information retrieval, human computer interaction and learning-oriented sciences. Given the lack of explicit information, understanding of users and their learning needs has to be derived from their search behavior and resource interactions. In this paper, we introduce the involved research challenges and survey related work on the detection of learning needs, understanding of users, e.g. with respect to their knowledge state, learning tasks and learning progress throughout a search session as well as the actual consideration of learning needs throughout the retrieval and ranking process. In addition, we summarise our own research contributing to the aforementioned tasks and describe our research agenda in this context.

cs.HC↗