Search

Widely deployed large language models (LLMs) can produce convincing yet incorrect outputs, potentially misleading users who may rely on them as if they were correct. To reduce such overreliance, there have been calls for LLMs to communicate their uncertainty to end users. However, there has been little empirical work examining how users perceive and act upon LLMs' expressions of uncertainty. We explore this question through a large-scale, pre-registered, human-subject experiment (N=404) in which participants answer medical questions with or without access to responses from a fictional LLM-infused search engine. Using both behavioral and self-reported measures, we examine how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions (e.g., "I'm not sure, but...") decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. An exploratory analysis suggests that this increase can be attributed to reduced (but not fully eliminated) overreliance on incorrect answers. While we observe similar effects for uncertainty expressed from a general perspective (e.g., "It's not clear, but..."), these effects are weaker and not statistically significant. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters. This highlights the importance of user testing before deploying LLMs at scale., Comment: Accepted to FAccT 2024. This version includes the appendix

Large language models (LLMs) powered conversational search systems have already been used by hundreds of millions of people, and are believed to bring many benefits over conventional search. However, while decades of research and public discourse interrogated the risk of search systems in increasing selective exposure and creating echo chambers -- limiting exposure to diverse opinions and leading to opinion polarization, little is known about such a risk of LLM-powered conversational search. We conduct two experiments to investigate: 1) whether and how LLM-powered conversational search increases selective exposure compared to conventional search; 2) whether and how LLMs with opinion biases that either reinforce or challenge the user's view change the effect. Overall, we found that participants engaged in more biased information querying with LLM-powered conversational search, and an opinionated LLM reinforcing their views exacerbated this bias. These results present critical implications for the development of LLMs and conversational search systems, and the policy governing these technologies., Comment: Accepted in CHI'24. Supplementary material will be available online with the official submission in CHI 2024

The rise of powerful large language models (LLMs) brings about tremendous opportunities for innovation but also looming risks for individuals and society at large. We have reached a pivotal moment for ensuring that LLMs and LLM-infused applications are developed and deployed responsibly. However, a central pillar of responsible AI -- transparency -- is largely missing from the current discourse around LLMs. It is paramount to pursue new approaches to provide transparency for LLMs, and years of research at the intersection of AI and human-computer interaction (HCI) highlight that we must do so with a human-centered perspective: Transparency is fundamentally about supporting appropriate human understanding, and this understanding is sought by different stakeholders with different goals in different contexts. In this new era of LLMs, we must develop and design approaches to transparency by considering the needs of stakeholders in the emerging LLM ecosystem, the novel types of LLM-infused applications being built, and the new usage patterns and challenges around LLMs, all while building on lessons learned about how people process, interact with, and make use of information. We reflect on the unique challenges that arise in providing transparency for LLMs, along with lessons learned from HCI and responsible AI research that has taken a human-centered perspective on AI transparency. We then lay out four common approaches that the community has taken to achieve transparency -- model reporting, publishing evaluation results, providing explanations, and communicating uncertainty -- and call out open questions around how these approaches may or may not be applied to LLMs. We hope this provides a starting point for discussion and a useful roadmap for future research.

The recent development of generative and large language models (LLMs) poses new challenges for model evaluation that the research community and industry are grappling with. While the versatile capabilities of these models ignite excitement, they also inevitably make a leap toward homogenization: powering a wide range of applications with a single, often referred to as ``general-purpose'', model. In this position paper, we argue that model evaluation practices must take on a critical task to cope with the challenges and responsibilities brought by this homogenization: providing valid assessments for whether and how much human needs in downstream use cases can be satisfied by the given model (socio-technical gap). By drawing on lessons from the social sciences, human-computer interaction (HCI), and the interdisciplinary field of explainable AI (XAI), we urge the community to develop evaluation methods based on real-world socio-requirements and embrace diverse evaluation methods with an acknowledgment of trade-offs between realism to socio-requirements and pragmatic costs to conduct the evaluation. By mapping HCI and current NLG evaluation methods, we identify opportunities for evaluation methods for LLMs to narrow the socio-technical gap and pose open questions.

We address a fundamental challenge in Natural Language Generation (NLG) model evaluation -- the design and evaluation of evaluation metrics. Recognizing the limitations of existing automatic metrics and noises from how current human evaluation was conducted, we propose MetricEval, a framework informed by measurement theory, the foundation of educational test design, for conceptualizing and evaluating the reliability and validity of NLG evaluation metrics. The framework formalizes the source of measurement error and offers statistical tools for evaluating evaluation metrics based on empirical data. With our framework, one can quantify the uncertainty of the metrics to better interpret the result. To exemplify the use of our framework in practice, we analyzed a set of evaluation metrics for summarization and identified issues related to conflated validity structure in human-eval and reliability in LLM-based metrics. Through MetricEval, we aim to promote the design, evaluation, and interpretation of valid and reliable metrics to advance robust and effective NLG models., Comment: EMNLP 2023

Qualitative analysis of textual contents unpacks rich and valuable information by assigning labels to the data. However, this process is often labor-intensive, particularly when working with large datasets. While recent AI-based tools demonstrate utility, researchers may not have readily available AI resources and expertise, let alone be challenged by the limited generalizability of those task-specific models. In this study, we explored the use of large language models (LLMs) in supporting deductive coding, a major category of qualitative analysis where researchers use pre-determined codebooks to label the data into a fixed set of codes. Instead of training task-specific models, a pre-trained LLM could be used directly for various tasks without fine-tuning through prompt learning. Using a curiosity-driven questions coding task as a case study, we found, by combining GPT-3 with expert-drafted codebooks, our proposed approach achieved fair to substantial agreements with expert-coded results. We lay out challenges and opportunities in using LLMs to support qualitative coding and beyond., Comment: 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '23 Companion), March 27--31, 2023, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Data storytelling plays an important role in data workers' daily jobs since it boosts team collaboration and public communication. However, to make an appealing data story, data workers spend tremendous efforts on various tasks, including outlining and styling the story. Recently, a growing research trend has been exploring how to assist data storytelling with advanced artificial intelligence (AI). However, existing studies may focus on individual tasks in the workflow of data storytelling and do not reveal a complete picture of humans' preference for collaborating with AI. To better understand real-world needs, we interviewed eighteen data workers from both industry and academia to learn where and how they would like to collaborate with AI. Surprisingly, though the participants showed excitement about collaborating with AI, many of them also expressed reluctance and pointed out nuanced reasons. Based on their responses, we first characterize stages and tasks in the practical data storytelling workflows and the desired roles of AI. Then the preferred collaboration patterns in different tasks are identified. Next, we summarize the interviewees' reasons why and why not they would like to collaborate with AI. Finally, we provide suggestions for human-AI collaborative data storytelling to hopefully shed light on future related research.

Despite the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI), designing user experiences (UX) for AI-powered systems remains challenging. UX designers face hurdles understanding AI technologies, such as pre-trained language models, as design materials. This limits their ability to ideate and make decisions about whether, where, and how to use AI. To address this problem, we bridge the literature on AI design and AI transparency to explore whether and how frameworks for transparent model reporting can support design ideation with pre-trained models. By interviewing 23 UX practitioners, we find that practitioners frequently work with pre-trained models, but lack support for UX-led ideation. Through a scenario-based design task, we identify common goals that designers seek model understanding for and pinpoint their model transparency information needs. Our study highlights the pivotal role that UX designers can play in Responsible AI and calls for supporting their understanding of AI limitations through model transparency and interrogation., Comment: Accepted at ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2023)

In recent years, the CHI community has seen significant growth in research on Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence. While different research communities may use different terminology to discuss similar topics, all of this work is ultimately aimed at developing AI that benefits humanity while being grounded in human rights and ethics, and reducing the potential harms of AI. In this special interest group, we aim to bring together researchers from academia and industry interested in these topics to map current and future research trends to advance this important area of research by fostering collaboration and sharing ideas., Comment: To appear in Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Large-scale generative models enabled the development of AI-powered code completion tools to assist programmers in writing code. However, much like other AI-powered tools, AI-powered code completions are not always accurate, potentially introducing bugs or even security vulnerabilities into code if not properly detected and corrected by a human programmer. One technique that has been proposed and implemented to help programmers identify potential errors is to highlight uncertain tokens. However, there have been no empirical studies exploring the effectiveness of this technique-- nor investigating the different and not-yet-agreed-upon notions of uncertainty in the context of generative models. We explore the question of whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code when collaborating with an AI-powered code completion tool, and if so, what measure of uncertainty best fits programmers' needs. Through a mixed-methods study with 30 programmers, we compare three conditions: providing the AI system's code completion alone, highlighting tokens with the lowest likelihood of being generated by the underlying generative model, and highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited by a programmer. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits, and is subjectively preferred by study participants. In contrast, highlighting tokens according to their probability of being generated does not provide any benefit over the baseline with no highlighting. We further explore the design space of how to convey uncertainty in AI-powered code completion tools, and find that programmers prefer highlights that are granular, informative, interpretable, and not overwhelming.

While a vast collection of explainable AI (XAI) algorithms have been developed in recent years, they are often criticized for significant gaps with how humans produce and consume explanations. As a result, current XAI techniques are often found to be hard to use and lack effectiveness. In this work, we attempt to close these gaps by making AI explanations selective -- a fundamental property of human explanations -- by selectively presenting a subset from a large set of model reasons based on what aligns with the recipient's preferences. We propose a general framework for generating selective explanations by leveraging human input on a small sample. This framework opens up a rich design space that accounts for different selectivity goals, types of input, and more. As a showcase, we use a decision-support task to explore selective explanations based on what the decision-maker would consider relevant to the decision task. We conducted two experimental studies to examine three out of a broader possible set of paradigms based on our proposed framework: in Study 1, we ask the participants to provide their own input to generate selective explanations, with either open-ended or critique-based input. In Study 2, we show participants selective explanations based on input from a panel of similar users (annotators). Our experiments demonstrate the promise of selective explanations in reducing over-reliance on AI and improving decision outcomes and subjective perceptions of the AI, but also paint a nuanced picture that attributes some of these positive effects to the opportunity to provide one's own input to augment AI explanations. Overall, our work proposes a novel XAI framework inspired by human communication behaviors and demonstrates its potentials to encourage future work to better align AI explanations with human production and consumption of explanations., Comment: 21 pages, 25 figures

AI explanations are often mentioned as a way to improve human-AI decision-making, but empirical studies have not found consistent evidence of explanations' effectiveness and, on the contrary, suggest that they can increase overreliance when the AI system is wrong. While many factors may affect reliance on AI support, one important factor is how decision-makers reconcile their own intuition -- beliefs or heuristics, based on prior knowledge, experience, or pattern recognition, used to make judgments -- with the information provided by the AI system to determine when to override AI predictions. We conduct a think-aloud, mixed-methods study with two explanation types (feature- and example-based) for two prediction tasks to explore how decision-makers' intuition affects their use of AI predictions and explanations, and ultimately their choice of when to rely on AI. Our results identify three types of intuition involved in reasoning about AI predictions and explanations: intuition about the task outcome, features, and AI limitations. Building on these, we summarize three observed pathways for decision-makers to apply their own intuition and override AI predictions. We use these pathways to explain why (1) the feature-based explanations we used did not improve participants' decision outcomes and increased their overreliance on AI, and (2) the example-based explanations we used improved decision-makers' performance over feature-based explanations and helped achieve complementary human-AI performance. Overall, our work identifies directions for further development of AI decision-support systems and explanation methods that help decision-makers effectively apply their intuition to achieve appropriate reliance on AI., Comment: To appear in CSCW 2023

Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. While black-boxing AI systems can make the user experience seamless, hiding the seams risks disempowering users to mitigate fallouts from AI mistakes. Instead of hiding these AI imperfections, can we leverage them to help the user? While Explainable AI (XAI) has predominantly tackled algorithmic opaqueness, we propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing and leveraging sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We introduce the concept of Seamful XAI by (1) conceptually transferring "seams" to the AI context and (2) developing a design process that helps stakeholders anticipate and design with seams. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users, using a scenario-based co-design activity informed by real-world use cases. We found that the Seamful XAI design process helped users foresee AI harms, identify underlying reasons (seams), locate them in the AI's lifecycle, learn how to leverage seamful information to improve XAI and user agency. We share empirical insights, implications, and reflections on how this process can help practitioners anticipate and craft seams in AI, how seamfulness can improve explainability, empower end-users, and facilitate Responsible AI.

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in the field of explainable AI (XAI), with a plethora of algorithms proposed in the literature. However, a lack of consensus on how to evaluate XAI hinders the advancement of the field. We highlight that XAI is not a monolithic set of technologies -- researchers and practitioners have begun to leverage XAI algorithms to build XAI systems that serve different usage contexts, such as model debugging and decision-support. Algorithmic research of XAI, however, often does not account for these diverse downstream usage contexts, resulting in limited effectiveness or even unintended consequences for actual users, as well as difficulties for practitioners to make technical choices. We argue that one way to close the gap is to develop evaluation methods that account for different user requirements in these usage contexts. Towards this goal, we introduce a perspective of contextualized XAI evaluation by considering the relative importance of XAI evaluation criteria for prototypical usage contexts of XAI. To explore the context dependency of XAI evaluation criteria, we conduct two survey studies, one with XAI topical experts and another with crowd workers. Our results urge for responsible AI research with usage-informed evaluation practices, and provide a nuanced understanding of user requirements for XAI in different usage contexts., Comment: Forthcoming for AAAI HCOMP 2022

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., Comment: FAccT 2022 paper draft

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., Comment: 18 pages, 44 figures

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.

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., Comment: 36 pages, 2 figures, see https://haidecisionmaking.github.io for website

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., Comment: draft for a book chapter

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., Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1909.03012

Explainability of AI systems is critical for users to take informed actions. Understanding "who" opens the black-box of AI is just as important as opening it. We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. Quantitatively, we share user perceptions along five dimensions. Qualitatively, we describe how AI background can influence interpretations, elucidating the differences through lenses of appropriation and cognitive heuristics. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design. Carrying critical implications for the field of XAI, our findings showcase how AI generated explanations can have negative consequences despite best intentions and how that could lead to harmful manipulation of trust. We propose design interventions to mitigate them.

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., Comment: Added references

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.

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., Comment: working paper

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., Comment: Accepted to CHI2021

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., Comment: Accepted at Workshop on Data Science with Human in the Loop (DaSH) @ ACM SIGKDD 2020

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., Comment: Accepted at the Workshop on Fair and Responsible AI at ACM CHI 2020

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., Comment: replacing with a draft accepted to CSCW2020

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., Comment: PublishedACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2020). Updated XAI Question Bank in September 2021

Today, AI is being increasingly used to help human experts make decisions in high-stakes scenarios. In these scenarios, full automation is often undesirable, not only due to the significance of the outcome, but also because human experts can draw on their domain knowledge complementary to the model's to ensure task success. We refer to these scenarios as AI-assisted decision making, where the individual strengths of the human and the AI come together to optimize the joint decision outcome. A key to their success is to appropriately \textit{calibrate} human trust in the AI on a case-by-case basis; knowing when to trust or distrust the AI allows the human expert to appropriately apply their knowledge, improving decision outcomes in cases where the model is likely to perform poorly. This research conducts a case study of AI-assisted decision making in which humans and AI have comparable performance alone, and explores whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. Specifically, we study the effect of showing confidence score and local explanation for a particular prediction. Through two human experiments, we show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making, which may also depend on whether the human can bring in enough unique knowledge to complement the AI's errors. We also highlight the problems in using local explanation for AI-assisted decision making scenarios and invite the research community to explore new approaches to explainability for calibrating human trust in AI.

Two general routes have been followed to develop artificial agents that are sensitive to human values---a top-down approach to encode values into the agents, and a bottom-up approach to learn from human actions, whether from real-world interactions or stories. Although both approaches have made exciting scientific progress, they may face challenges when applied to the current development practices of AI systems, which require the under-standing of the specific domains and specific stakeholders involved. In this work, we bring together perspectives from the human-computer interaction (HCI) community, where designing technologies sensitive to user values has been a longstanding focus. We highlight several well-established areas focusing on developing empirical methods for inquiring user values. Based on these methods, we propose participatory design fictions to study user values involved in AI systems and present preliminary results from a case study. With this paper, we invite the consideration of user-centered value inquiry and value learning.

As artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms make further inroads into society, calls are increasing from multiple stakeholders for these algorithms to explain their outputs. At the same time, these stakeholders, whether they be affected citizens, government regulators, domain experts, or system developers, present different requirements for explanations. Toward addressing these needs, we introduce AI Explainability 360 (http://aix360.mybluemix.net/), an open-source software toolkit featuring eight diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods and two evaluation metrics. Equally important, we provide a taxonomy to help entities requiring explanations to navigate the space of explanation methods, not only those in the toolkit but also in the broader literature on explainability. For data scientists and other users of the toolkit, we have implemented an extensible software architecture that organizes methods according to their place in the AI modeling pipeline. We also discuss enhancements to bring research innovations closer to consumers of explanations, ranging from simplified, more accessible versions of algorithms, to tutorials and an interactive web demo to introduce AI explainability to different audiences and application domains. Together, our toolkit and taxonomy can help identify gaps where more explainability methods are needed and provide a platform to incorporate them as they are developed.

The rise of increasingly more powerful chatbots offers a new way to collect information through conversational surveys, where a chatbot asks open-ended questions, interprets a user's free-text responses, and probes answers whenever needed. To investigate the effectiveness and limitations of such a chatbot in conducting surveys, we conducted a field study involving about 600 participants. In this study with mostly open-ended questions, half of the participants took a typical online survey on Qualtrics and the other half interacted with an AI-powered chatbot to complete a conversational survey. Our detailed analysis of over 5200 free-text responses revealed that the chatbot drove a significantly higher level of participant engagement and elicited significantly better quality responses measured by Gricean Maxims in terms of their informativeness, relevance, specificity, and clarity. Based on our results, we discuss design implications for creating AI-powered chatbots to conduct effective surveys and beyond., Comment: The paper is accepted by ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)

Many conversational agents in the market today follow a standard bot development framework which requires training intent classifiers to recognize user input. The need to create a proper set of training examples is often the bottleneck in the development process. In many occasions agent developers have access to historical chat logs that can provide a good quantity as well as coverage of training examples. However, the cost of labeling them with tens to hundreds of intents often prohibits taking full advantage of these chat logs. In this paper, we present a framework called \textit{search, label, and propagate} (SLP) for bootstrapping intents from existing chat logs using weak supervision. The framework reduces hours to days of labeling effort down to minutes of work by using a search engine to find examples, then relies on a data programming approach to automatically expand the labels. We report on a user study that shows positive user feedback for this new approach to build conversational agents, and demonstrates the effectiveness of using data programming for auto-labeling. While the system is developed for training conversational agents, the framework has broader application in significantly reducing labeling effort for training text classifiers., Comment: 6 pages, 3 figures, 1 table, Accepted for publication in IAAI 2019

Dialog is a natural modality for interaction between customers and businesses in the service industry. As customers call up the service provider, their interactions may be routine or extraordinary. We believe that these interactions, when seen as dialogs, can be analyzed to obtain a better understanding of customer needs and how to efficiently address them. We introduce the idea of a dialog complexity measure to characterize multi-party interactions, propose a general data-driven method to calculate it, use it to discover insights in public and enterprise dialog datasets, and demonstrate its beneficial usage in facilitating better handling of customer requests and evaluating service agents., Comment: 11 pages