Search

Qualitative analysis is critical to understanding human datasets in many social science disciplines. Open coding is an inductive qualitative process that identifies and interprets "open codes" from datasets. Yet, meeting methodological expectations (such as "as exhaustive as possible") can be challenging. While many machine learning (ML)/generative AI (GAI) studies have attempted to support open coding, few have systematically measured or evaluated GAI outcomes, increasing potential bias risks. Building on Grounded Theory and Thematic Analysis theories, we present a computational method to measure and identify potential biases from "open codes" systematically. Instead of operationalizing human expert results as the "ground truth," our method is built upon a team-based approach between human and machine coders. We experiment with two HCI datasets to establish this method's reliability by 1) comparing it with human analysis, and 2) analyzing its output stability. We present evidence-based suggestions and example workflows for ML/GAI to support open coding.

Humans and AIs are often paired on decision tasks with the expectation of achieving complementary performance -- where the combination of human and AI outperforms either one alone. However, how to improve performance of a human-AI team is often not clear without knowing more about what particular information and strategies each agent employs. In this paper, we propose a model based in statistically decision theory to analyze human-AI collaboration from the perspective of what information could be used to improve a human or AI decision. We demonstrate our model on a deepfake detection task to investigate seven video-level features by their unexploited value of information. We compare the human alone, AI alone and human-AI team and offer insights on how the AI assistance impacts people's usage of the information and what information that the AI exploits well might be useful for improving human decisions.

There is an increasing interest in using language models (LMs) for automated decision-making, with multiple countries actively testing LMs to aid in military crisis decision-making. To scrutinize relying on LM decision-making in high-stakes settings, we examine the inconsistency of responses in a crisis simulation ("wargame"), similar to reported tests conducted by the US military. Prior work illustrated escalatory tendencies and varying levels of aggression among LMs but were constrained to simulations with pre-defined actions. This was due to the challenges associated with quantitatively measuring semantic differences and evaluating natural language decision-making without relying on pre-defined actions. In this work, we query LMs for free form responses and use a metric based on BERTScore to measure response inconsistency quantitatively. Leveraging the benefits of BERTScore, we show that the inconsistency metric is robust to linguistic variations that preserve semantic meaning in a question-answering setting across text lengths. We show that all five tested LMs exhibit levels of inconsistency that indicate semantic differences, even when adjusting the wargame setting, anonymizing involved conflict countries, or adjusting the sampling temperature parameter $T$. Further qualitative evaluation shows that models recommend courses of action that share few to no similarities. We also study the impact of different prompt sensitivity variations on inconsistency at temperature $T = 0$. We find that inconsistency due to semantically equivalent prompt variations can exceed response inconsistency from temperature sampling for most studied models across different levels of ablations. Given the high-stakes nature of military deployment, we recommend further consideration be taken before using LMs to inform military decisions or other cases of high-stakes decision-making.

Research in Responsible AI has developed a range of principles and practices to ensure that machine learning systems are used in a manner that is ethical and aligned with human values. However, a critical yet often neglected aspect of ethical ML is the ethical implications that appear when designing evaluations of ML systems. For instance, teams may have to balance a trade-off between highly informative tests to ensure downstream product safety, with potential fairness harms inherent to the implemented testing procedures. We conceptualize ethics-related concerns in standard ML evaluation techniques. Specifically, we present a utility framework, characterizing the key trade-off in ethical evaluation as balancing information gain against potential ethical harms. The framework is then a tool for characterizing challenges teams face, and systematically disentangling competing considerations that teams seek to balance. Differentiating between different types of issues encountered in evaluation allows us to highlight best practices from analogous domains, such as clinical trials and automotive crash testing, which navigate these issues in ways that can offer inspiration to improve evaluation processes in ML. Our analysis underscores the critical need for development teams to deliberately assess and manage ethical complexities that arise during the evaluation of ML systems, and for the industry to move towards designing institutional policies to support ethical evaluations.

The high level of photorealism in state-of-the-art diffusion models like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Firefly makes it difficult for untrained humans to distinguish between real photographs and AI-generated images. To address this problem, we designed a guide to help readers develop a more critical eye toward identifying artifacts, inconsistencies, and implausibilities that often appear in AI-generated images. The guide is organized into five categories of artifacts and implausibilities: anatomical, stylistic, functional, violations of physics, and sociocultural. For this guide, we generated 138 images with diffusion models, curated 9 images from social media, and curated 42 real photographs. These images showcase the kinds of cues that prompt suspicion towards the possibility an image is AI-generated and why it is often difficult to draw conclusions about an image's provenance without any context beyond the pixels in an image. Human-perceptible artifacts are not always present in AI-generated images, but this guide reveals artifacts and implausibilities that often emerge. By drawing attention to these kinds of artifacts and implausibilities, we aim to better equip people to distinguish AI-generated images from real photographs in the future., Comment: 54 pages, 189 Figures

Humans frequently make decisions with the aid of artificially intelligent (AI) systems. A common pattern is for the AI to recommend an action to the human who retains control over the final decision. Researchers have identified ensuring that a human has appropriate reliance on an AI as a critical component of achieving complementary performance. We argue that the current definition of appropriate reliance used in such research lacks formal statistical grounding and can lead to contradictions. We propose a formal definition of reliance, based on statistical decision theory, which separates the concepts of reliance as the probability the decision-maker follows the AI's recommendation from challenges a human may face in differentiating the signals and forming accurate beliefs about the situation. Our definition gives rise to a framework that can be used to guide the design and interpretation of studies on human-AI complementarity and reliance. Using recent AI-advised decision making studies from literature, we demonstrate how our framework can be used to separate the loss due to mis-reliance from the loss due to not accurately differentiating the signals. We evaluate these losses by comparing to a baseline and a benchmark for complementary performance defined by the expected payoff achieved by a rational decision-maker facing the same decision task as the behavioral decision-makers.

How well people use information displays to make decisions is of primary interest in human-centered AI, model explainability, data visualization, and related areas. However, what constitutes a decision problem, and what is required for a study to establish that human decisions could be improved remain open to speculation. We propose a widely applicable definition of a decision problem synthesized from statistical decision theory and information economics as a standard for establishing when human decisions can be improved in HCI. We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the utility-maximizing decision. As a demonstration, we evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve these criteria. We find that only 10 (26\%) of 39 studies that claim to identify biased behavior present participants with sufficient information to characterize their behavior as deviating from good decision-making in at least one treatment condition. We motivate the value of studying well-defined decision problems by describing a characterization of performance losses they allow us to conceive. In contrast, the ambiguities of a poorly communicated decision problem preclude normative interpretation. We conclude with recommendations for practice.

Generative AIs produce creative outputs in the style of human expression. We argue that encounters with the outputs of modern generative AI models are mediated by the same kinds of aesthetic judgments that organize our interactions with artwork. The interpretation procedure we use on art we find in museums is not an innate human faculty, but one developed over history by disciplines such as art history and art criticism to fulfill certain social functions. This gives us pause when considering our reactions to generative AI, how we should approach this new medium, and why generative AI seems to incite so much fear about the future. We naturally inherit a conundrum of causal inference from the history of art: a work can be read as a symptom of the cultural conditions that influenced its creation while simultaneously being framed as a timeless, seemingly acausal distillation of an eternal human condition. In this essay, we focus on an unresolved tension when we bring this dilemma to bear in the context of generative AI: are we looking for proof that generated media reflects something about the conditions that created it or some eternal human essence? Are current modes of interpretation sufficient for this task? Historically, new forms of art have changed how art is interpreted, with such influence used as evidence that a work of art has touched some essential human truth. As generative AI influences contemporary aesthetic judgment we outline some of the pitfalls and traps in attempting to scrutinize what AI generated media means., Comment: 16 pages, 4 figures

Machine learning (ML) methods are proliferating in scientific research. However, the adoption of these methods has been accompanied by failures of validity, reproducibility, and generalizability. These failures can hinder scientific progress, lead to false consensus around invalid claims, and undermine the credibility of ML-based science. ML methods are often applied and fail in similar ways across disciplines. Motivated by this observation, our goal is to provide clear reporting standards for ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist ($\textbf{Re}$porting Standards $\textbf{For}$ $\textbf{M}$achine Learning Based $\textbf{S}$cience). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed based on a consensus of 19 researchers across computer science, data science, mathematics, social sciences, and biomedical sciences. REFORMS can serve as a resource for researchers when designing and implementing a study, for referees when reviewing papers, and for journals when enforcing standards for transparency and reproducibility.

Visualization for machine learning (VIS4ML) research aims to help experts apply their prior knowledge to develop, understand, and improve the performance of machine learning models. In conceiving VIS4ML systems, researchers characterize the nature of human knowledge to support human-in-the-loop tasks, design interactive visualizations to make ML components interpretable and elicit knowledge, and evaluate the effectiveness of human-model interchange. We survey recent VIS4ML papers to assess the generalizability of research contributions and claims in enabling human-in-the-loop ML. Our results show potential gaps between the current scope of VIS4ML research and aspirations for its use in practice. We find that while papers motivate that VIS4ML systems are applicable beyond the specific conditions studied, conclusions are often overfitted to non-representative scenarios, are based on interactions with a small set of ML experts and well-understood datasets, fail to acknowledge crucial dependencies, and hinge on decisions that lack justification. We discuss approaches to close the gap between aspirations and research claims and suggest documentation practices to report generality constraints that better acknowledge the exploratory nature of VIS4ML research.