BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Besmira Nushi

Besmira Nushi contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer InteractionMachine LearningComputation and LanguageComputer VisionSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

7 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