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

Nina Grgić-Hlača

Nina Grgić-Hlača contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYHuman-Computer InteractionArtificial IntelligenceMachine 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)

preprint2022arXiv

"Look! It's a Computer Program! It's an Algorithm! It's AI!": Does Terminology Affect Human Perceptions and Evaluations of Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems?

In the media, in policy-making, but also in research articles, algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems are referred to as algorithms, artificial intelligence, and computer programs, amongst other terms. We hypothesize that such terminological differences can affect people's perceptions of properties of ADM systems, people's evaluations of systems in application contexts, and the replicability of research as findings may be influenced by terminological differences. In two studies (N = 397, N = 622), we show that terminology does indeed affect laypeople's perceptions of system properties (e.g., perceived complexity) and evaluations of systems (e.g., trust). Our findings highlight the need to be mindful when choosing terms to describe ADM systems, because terminology can have unintended consequences, and may impact the robustness and replicability of HCI research. Additionally, our findings indicate that terminology can be used strategically (e.g., in communication about ADM systems) to influence people's perceptions and evaluations of these systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Dimensions of Diversity in Human Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness

A growing number of oversight boards and regulatory bodies seek to monitor and govern algorithms that make decisions about people's lives. Prior work has explored how people believe algorithmic decisions should be made, but there is little understanding of how individual factors like sociodemographics or direct experience with a decision-making scenario may affect their ethical views. We take a step toward filling this gap by exploring how people's perceptions of one aspect of procedural algorithmic fairness (the fairness of using particular features in an algorithmic decision) relate to their (i) demographics (age, education, gender, race, political views) and (ii) personal experiences with the algorithmic decision-making scenario. We find that political views and personal experience with the algorithmic decision context significantly influence perceptions about the fairness of using different features for bail decision-making. Drawing on our results, we discuss the implications for stakeholder engagement and algorithmic oversight including the need to consider multiple dimensions of diversity in composing oversight and regulatory bodies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Taking Advice from (Dis)Similar Machines: The Impact of Human-Machine Similarity on Machine-Assisted Decision-Making

Machine learning algorithms are increasingly used to assist human decision-making. When the goal of machine assistance is to improve the accuracy of human decisions, it might seem appealing to design ML algorithms that complement human knowledge. While neither the algorithm nor the human are perfectly accurate, one could expect that their complementary expertise might lead to improved outcomes. In this study, we demonstrate that in practice decision aids that are not complementary, but make errors similar to human ones may have their own benefits. In a series of human-subject experiments with a total of 901 participants, we study how the similarity of human and machine errors influences human perceptions of and interactions with algorithmic decision aids. We find that (i) people perceive more similar decision aids as more useful, accurate, and predictable, and that (ii) people are more likely to take opposing advice from more similar decision aids, while (iii) decision aids that are less similar to humans have more opportunities to provide opposing advice, resulting in a higher influence on people's decisions overall.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Conflict Between Explainable and Accountable Decision-Making Algorithms

Decision-making algorithms are being used in important decisions, such as who should be enrolled in health care programs and be hired. Even though these systems are currently deployed in high-stakes scenarios, many of them cannot explain their decisions. This limitation has prompted the Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) initiative, which aims to make algorithms explainable to comply with legal requirements, promote trust, and maintain accountability. This paper questions whether and to what extent explainability can help solve the responsibility issues posed by autonomous AI systems. We suggest that XAI systems that provide post-hoc explanations could be seen as blameworthy agents, obscuring the responsibility of developers in the decision-making process. Furthermore, we argue that XAI could result in incorrect attributions of responsibility to vulnerable stakeholders, such as those who are subjected to algorithmic decisions (i.e., patients), due to a misguided perception that they have control over explainable algorithms. This conflict between explainability and accountability can be exacerbated if designers choose to use algorithms and patients as moral and legal scapegoats. We conclude with a set of recommendations for how to approach this tension in the socio-technical process of algorithmic decision-making and a defense of hard regulation to prevent designers from escaping responsibility.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making

How to attribute responsibility for autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) systems' actions has been widely debated across the humanities and social science disciplines. This work presents two experiments ($N$=200 each) that measure people's perceptions of eight different notions of moral responsibility concerning AI and human agents in the context of bail decision-making. Using real-life adapted vignettes, our experiments show that AI agents are held causally responsible and blamed similarly to human agents for an identical task. However, there was a meaningful difference in how people perceived these agents' moral responsibility; human agents were ascribed to a higher degree of present-looking and forward-looking notions of responsibility than AI agents. We also found that people expect both AI and human decision-makers and advisors to justify their decisions regardless of their nature. We discuss policy and HCI implications of these findings, such as the need for explainable AI in high-stakes scenarios.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access