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

Po-Ming Law

Po-Ming Law contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Human-Computer Interactioncs.CYMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
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

4 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Causal Perception in Question-Answering Systems

Root cause analysis is a common data analysis task. While question-answering systems enable people to easily articulate a why question (e.g., why students in Massachusetts have high ACT Math scores on average) and obtain an answer, these systems often produce questionable causal claims. To investigate how such claims might mislead users, we conducted two crowdsourced experiments to study the impact of showing different information on user perceptions of a question-answering system. We found that in a system that occasionally provided unreasonable responses, showing a scatterplot increased the plausibility of unreasonable causal claims. Also, simply warning participants that correlation is not causation seemed to lead participants to accept reasonable causal claims more cautiously. We observed a strong tendency among participants to associate correlation with causation. Yet, the warning appeared to reduce the tendency. Grounded in the findings, we propose ways to reduce the illusion of causality when using question-answering systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Characterizing Automated Data Insights

Many researchers have explored tools that aim to recommend data insights to users. These tools automatically communicate a rich diversity of data insights and offer such insights for many different purposes. However, there is a lack of structured understanding concerning what researchers of these tools mean by "insight" and what tasks in the analysis workflow these tools aim to support. We conducted a systematic review of existing systems that seek to recommend data insights. Grounded in the review, we propose 12 types of automated insights and four purposes of automating insights. We further discuss the design opportunities emerged from our analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Designing Tools for Semi-Automated Detection of Machine Learning Biases: An Interview Study

Machine learning models often make predictions that bias against certain subgroups of input data. When undetected, machine learning biases can constitute significant financial and ethical implications. Semi-automated tools that involve humans in the loop could facilitate bias detection. Yet, little is known about the considerations involved in their design. In this paper, we report on an interview study with 11 machine learning practitioners for investigating the needs surrounding semi-automated bias detection tools. Based on the findings, we highlight four considerations in designing to guide system designers who aim to create future tools for bias detection.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Impact of Presentation Style on Human-In-The-Loop Detection of Algorithmic Bias

While decision makers have begun to employ machine learning, machine learning models may make predictions that bias against certain demographic groups. Semi-automated bias detection tools often present reports of automatically-detected biases using a recommendation list or visual cues. However, there is a lack of guidance concerning which presentation style to use in what scenarios. We conducted a small lab study with 16 participants to investigate how presentation style might affect user behaviors in reviewing bias reports. Participants used both a prototype with a recommendation list and a prototype with visual cues for bias detection. We found that participants often wanted to investigate the performance measures that were not automatically detected as biases. Yet, when using the prototype with a recommendation list, they tended to give less consideration to such measures. Grounded in the findings, we propose information load and comprehensiveness as two axes for characterizing bias detection tasks and illustrate how the two axes could be adopted to reason about when to use a recommendation list or visual cues.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access