BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Besmira Nushi

Besmira Nushi appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningHuman-Computer InteractionDatabasesComputation and LanguageComputer VisionSocial and Information NetworksSoftware Engineering

Catalog footprint

What is connected

12works
8topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

12 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making

Human-AI collaboration for decision-making strives to achieve team performance that exceeds the performance of humans or AI alone. However, many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user's domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more. This work examines users' interaction with three simulated algorithmic models, all with similar accuracy but different tuning on their true positive and true negative rates. Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled. Our results show that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid user decision making, factors such as users' baseline performance relative to the AI and complementary tuning of AI error types significantly impact overall team performance. Novice users improved, but not to the accuracy level of the AI. Highly proficient users were generally able to discern when they should follow the AI recommendation and typically maintained or improved their performance. Mid-performers, who had a similar level of accuracy to the AI, were most variable in terms of whether the AI recommendations helped or hurt their performance. In addition, we found that users' perception of the AI's performance relative on their own also had a significant impact on whether their accuracy improved when given AI recommendations. This work provides insights on the complexity of factors related to Human-AI collaboration and provides recommendations on how to develop human-centered AI algorithms to complement users in decision-making tasks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Investigations of Performance and Bias in Human-AI Teamwork in Hiring

In AI-assisted decision-making, effective hybrid (human-AI) teamwork is not solely dependent on AI performance alone, but also on its impact on human decision-making. While prior work studies the effects of model accuracy on humans, we endeavour here to investigate the complex dynamics of how both a model's predictive performance and bias may transfer to humans in a recommendation-aided decision task. We consider the domain of ML-assisted hiring, where humans -- operating in a constrained selection setting -- can choose whether they wish to utilize a trained model's inferences to help select candidates from written biographies. We conduct a large-scale user study leveraging a re-created dataset of real bios from prior work, where humans predict the ground truth occupation of given candidates with and without the help of three different NLP classifiers (random, bag-of-words, and deep neural network). Our results demonstrate that while high-performance models significantly improve human performance in a hybrid setting, some models mitigate hybrid bias while others accentuate it. We examine these findings through the lens of decision conformity and observe that our model architecture choices have an impact on human-AI conformity and bias, motivating the explicit need to assess these complex dynamics prior to deployment.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Who Goes First? Influences of Human-AI Workflow on Decision Making in Clinical Imaging

Details of the designs and mechanisms in support of human-AI collaboration must be considered in the real-world fielding of AI technologies. A critical aspect of interaction design for AI-assisted human decision making are policies about the display and sequencing of AI inferences within larger decision-making workflows. We have a poor understanding of the influences of making AI inferences available before versus after human review of a diagnostic task at hand. We explore the effects of providing AI assistance at the start of a diagnostic session in radiology versus after the radiologist has made a provisional decision. We conducted a user study where 19 veterinary radiologists identified radiographic findings present in patients' X-ray images, with the aid of an AI tool. We employed two workflow configurations to analyze (i) anchoring effects, (ii) human-AI team diagnostic performance and agreement, (iii) time spent and confidence in decision making, and (iv) perceived usefulness of the AI. We found that participants who are asked to register provisional responses in advance of reviewing AI inferences are less likely to agree with the AI regardless of whether the advice is accurate and, in instances of disagreement with the AI, are less likely to seek the second opinion of a colleague. These participants also reported the AI advice to be less useful. Surprisingly, requiring provisional decisions on cases in advance of the display of AI inferences did not lengthen the time participants spent on the task. The study provides generalizable and actionable insights for the deployment of clinical AI tools in human-in-the-loop systems and introduces a methodology for studying alternative designs for human-AI collaboration. We make our experimental platform available as open source to facilitate future research on the influence of alternate designs on human-AI workflows.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance

Many researchers motivate explainable AI with studies showing that human-AI team performance on decision-making tasks improves when the AI explains its recommendations. However, prior studies observed improvements from explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best team. Can explanations help lead to complementary performance, where team accuracy is higher than either the human or the AI working solo? We conduct mixed-method user studies on three datasets, where an AI with accuracy comparable to humans helps participants solve a task (explaining itself in some conditions). While we observed complementary improvements from AI augmentation, they were not increased by explanations. Rather, explanations increased the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation, regardless of its correctness. Our result poses new challenges for human-centered AI: Can we develop explanatory approaches that encourage appropriate trust in AI, and therefore help generate (or improve) complementary performance?

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork

AI practitioners typically strive to develop the most accurate systems, making an implicit assumption that the AI system will function autonomously. However, in practice, AI systems often are used to provide advice to people in domains ranging from criminal justice and finance to healthcare. In such AI-advised decision making, humans and machines form a team, where the human is responsible for making final decisions. But is the most accurate AI the best teammate? We argue "No" -- predictable performance may be worth a slight sacrifice in AI accuracy. Instead, we argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. To optimize the team performance for this setting we maximize the team's expected utility, expressed in terms of the quality of the final decision, cost of verifying, and individual accuracies of people and machines. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance and show the benefit of modeling teamwork during training through improvements in expected team utility across datasets, considering parameters such as human skill and the cost of mistakes. We discuss the shortcoming of current optimization approaches beyond well-studied loss functions such as log-loss, and encourage future work on AI optimization problems motivated by human-AI collaboration.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An Empirical Analysis of Backward Compatibility in Machine Learning Systems

In many applications of machine learning (ML), updates are performed with the goal of enhancing model performance. However, current practices for updating models rely solely on isolated, aggregate performance analyses, overlooking important dependencies, expectations, and needs in real-world deployments. We consider how updates, intended to improve ML models, can introduce new errors that can significantly affect downstream systems and users. For example, updates in models used in cloud-based classification services, such as image recognition, can cause unexpected erroneous behavior in systems that make calls to the services. Prior work has shown the importance of "backward compatibility" for maintaining human trust. We study challenges with backward compatibility across different ML architectures and datasets, focusing on common settings including data shifts with structured noise and ML employed in inferential pipelines. Our results show that (i) compatibility issues arise even without data shift due to optimization stochasticity, (ii) training on large-scale noisy datasets often results in significant decreases in backward compatibility even when model accuracy increases, and (iii) distributions of incompatible points align with noise bias, motivating the need for compatibility aware de-noising and robustness methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

SQuINTing at VQA Models: Introspecting VQA Models with Sub-Questions

Existing VQA datasets contain questions with varying levels of complexity. While the majority of questions in these datasets require perception for recognizing existence, properties, and spatial relationships of entities, a significant portion of questions pose challenges that correspond to reasoning tasks - tasks that can only be answered through a synthesis of perception and knowledge about the world, logic and / or reasoning. Analyzing performance across this distinction allows us to notice when existing VQA models have consistency issues; they answer the reasoning questions correctly but fail on associated low-level perception questions. For example, in Figure 1, models answer the complex reasoning question "Is the banana ripe enough to eat?" correctly, but fail on the associated perception question "Are the bananas mostly green or yellow?" indicating that the model likely answered the reasoning question correctly but for the wrong reason. We quantify the extent to which this phenomenon occurs by creating a new Reasoning split of the VQA dataset and collecting VQA-introspect, a new dataset1 which consists of 238K new perception questions which serve as sub questions corresponding to the set of perceptual tasks needed to effectively answer the complex reasoning questions in the Reasoning split. Our evaluation shows that state-of-the-art VQA models have comparable performance in answering perception and reasoning questions, but suffer from consistency problems. To address this shortcoming, we propose an approach called Sub-Question Importance-aware Network Tuning (SQuINT), which encourages the model to attend to the same parts of the image when answering the reasoning question and the perception sub question. We show that SQuINT improves model consistency by ~5%, also marginally improving performance on the Reasoning questions in VQA, while also displaying better attention maps.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

On Human Intellect and Machine Failures: Troubleshooting Integrative Machine Learning Systems

We study the problem of troubleshooting machine learning systems that rely on analytical pipelines of distinct components. Understanding and fixing errors that arise in such integrative systems is difficult as failures can occur at multiple points in the execution workflow. Moreover, errors can propagate, become amplified or be suppressed, making blame assignment difficult. We propose a human-in-the-loop methodology which leverages human intellect for troubleshooting system failures. The approach simulates potential component fixes through human computation tasks and measures the expected improvements in the holistic behavior of the system. The method provides guidance to designers about how they can best improve the system. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach on an automated image captioning system that has been pressed into real-world use.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Crowd Access Path Optimization: Diversity Matters

Quality assurance is one the most important challenges in crowdsourcing. Assigning tasks to several workers to increase quality through redundant answers can be expensive if asking homogeneous sources. This limitation has been overlooked by current crowdsourcing platforms resulting therefore in costly solutions. In order to achieve desirable cost-quality tradeoffs it is essential to apply efficient crowd access optimization techniques. Our work argues that optimization needs to be aware of diversity and correlation of information within groups of individuals so that crowdsourcing redundancy can be adequately planned beforehand. Based on this intuitive idea, we introduce the Access Path Model (APM), a novel crowd model that leverages the notion of access paths as an alternative way of retrieving information. APM aggregates answers ensuring high quality and meaningful confidence. Moreover, we devise a greedy optimization algorithm for this model that finds a provably good approximate plan to access the crowd. We evaluate our approach on three crowdsourced datasets that illustrate various aspects of the problem. Our results show that the Access Path Model combined with greedy optimization is cost-efficient and practical to overcome common difficulties in large-scale crowdsourcing like data sparsity and anonymity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Fault-Tolerant Entity Resolution with the Crowd

In recent years, crowdsourcing is increasingly applied as a means to enhance data quality. Although the crowd generates insightful information especially for complex problems such as entity resolution (ER), the output quality of crowd workers is often noisy. That is, workers may unintentionally generate false or contradicting data even for simple tasks. The challenge that we address in this paper is how to minimize the cost for task requesters while maximizing ER result quality under the assumption of unreliable input from the crowd. For that purpose, we first establish how to deduce a consistent ER solution from noisy worker answers as part of the data interpretation problem. We then focus on the next-crowdsource problem which is to find the next task that maximizes the information gain of the ER result for the minimal additional cost. We compare our robust data interpretation strategies to alternative state-of-the-art approaches that do not incorporate the notion of fault-tolerance, i.e., the robustness to noise. In our experimental evaluation we show that our approaches yield a quality improvement of at least 20% for two real-world datasets. Furthermore, we examine task-to-worker assignment strategies as well as task parallelization techniques in terms of their cost and quality trade-offs in this paper. Based on both synthetic and crowdsourced datasets, we then draw conclusions on how to minimize cost while maintaining high quality ER results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

CrowdSTAR: A Social Task Routing Framework for Online Communities

The online communities available on the Web have shown to be significantly interactive and capable of collectively solving difficult tasks. Nevertheless, it is still a challenge to decide how a task should be dispatched through the network due to the high diversity of the communities and the dynamically changing expertise and social availability of their members. We introduce CrowdSTAR, a framework designed to route tasks across and within online crowds. CrowdSTAR indexes the topic-specific expertise and social features of the crowd contributors and then uses a routing algorithm, which suggests the best sources to ask based on the knowledge vs. availability trade-offs. We experimented with the proposed framework for question and answering scenarios by using two popular social networks as crowd candidates: Twitter and Quora.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Uncertain Time-Series Similarity: Return to the Basics

In the last years there has been a considerable increase in the availability of continuous sensor measurements in a wide range of application domains, such as Location-Based Services (LBS), medical monitoring systems, manufacturing plants and engineering facilities to ensure efficiency, product quality and safety, hydrologic and geologic observing systems, pollution management, and others. Due to the inherent imprecision of sensor observations, many investigations have recently turned into querying, mining and storing uncertain data. Uncertainty can also be due to data aggregation, privacy-preserving transforms, and error-prone mining algorithms. In this study, we survey the techniques that have been proposed specifically for modeling and processing uncertain time series, an important model for temporal data. We provide an analytical evaluation of the alternatives that have been proposed in the literature, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and further compare these alternatives with two additional techniques that were carefully studied before. We conduct an extensive experimental evaluation with 17 real datasets, and discuss some surprising results, which suggest that a fruitful research direction is to take into account the temporal correlations in the time series. Based on our evaluations, we also provide guidelines useful for the practitioners in the field.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access