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

Eduardo Velloso

Eduardo Velloso contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Human-Computer InteractionArtificial Intelligencecs.CYMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
4topics
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

5 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

A Probabilistic Interpretation of Motion Correlation Selection Techniques

Motion correlation interfaces are those that present targets moving in different patterns, which the user can select by matching their motion. In this paper, we re-formulate the task of target selection as a probabilistic inference problem. We demonstrate that previous interaction techniques can be modelled using a Bayesian approach and that how modelling the selection task as transmission of information can help us make explicit the assumptions behind similarity measures. We propose ways of incorporating uncertainty into the decision-making process and demonstrate how the concept of entropy can illuminate the measurement of the quality of a design. We apply these techniques in a case study and suggest guidelines for future work.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Conceptualising Contestability: Perspectives on Contesting Algorithmic Decisions

As the use of algorithmic systems in high-stakes decision-making increases, the ability to contest algorithmic decisions is being recognised as an important safeguard for individuals. Yet, there is little guidance on what `contestability'--the ability to contest decisions--in relation to algorithmic decision-making requires. Recent research presents different conceptualisations of contestability in algorithmic decision-making. We contribute to this growing body of work by describing and analysing the perspectives of people and organisations who made submissions in response to Australia's proposed `AI Ethics Framework', the first framework of its kind to include `contestability' as a core ethical principle. Our findings reveal that while the nature of contestability is disputed, it is seen as a way to protect individuals, and it resembles contestability in relation to human decision-making. We reflect on and discuss the implications of these findings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Designing for Contestation: Insights from Administrative Law

A paper presented at the Workshop on Contestability in Algorithmic Systems at CSCW 2019. Challenging algorithmic decisions is important to decision subjects, yet numerous factors can limit a person's ability to contest such decisions. We propose that administrative law systems, which were created to ensure that governments are kept accountable for their actions and decision making in relation to individuals, can provide guidance on how to design contestation systems for algorithmic decision-making.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Directive Explanations for Actionable Explainability in Machine Learning Applications

This paper investigates the prospects of using directive explanations to assist people in achieving recourse of machine learning decisions. Directive explanations list which specific actions an individual needs to take to achieve their desired outcome. If a machine learning model makes a decision that is detrimental to an individual (e.g. denying a loan application), then it needs to both explain why it made that decision and also explain how the individual could obtain their desired outcome (if possible). At present, this is often done using counterfactual explanations, but such explanations generally do not tell individuals how to act. We assert that counterfactual explanations can be improved by explicitly providing people with actions they could use to achieve their desired goal. This paper makes two contributions. First, we present the results of an online study investigating people&#39;s perception of directive explanations. Second, we propose a conceptual model to generate such explanations. Our online study showed a significant preference for directive explanations ($p<0.001$). However, the participants&#39; preferred explanation type was affected by multiple factors, such as individual preferences, social factors, and the feasibility of the directives. Our findings highlight the need for a human-centred and context-specific approach for creating directive explanations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Fair and Responsible AI: A Focus on the Ability to Contest

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in high-stakes decision-making increases, the ability to contest such decisions is being recognised in AI ethics guidelines as an important safeguard for individuals. Yet, there is little guidance on how AI systems can be designed to support contestation. In this paper we explain that the design of a contestation process is important due to its impact on perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. We also consider design challenges, including a lack of transparency as well as the numerous design options that decision-making entities will be faced with. We argue for a human-centred approach to designing for contestability to ensure that the needs of decision subjects, and the community, are met.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access