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

Q. Vera Liao

Q. Vera Liao contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer InteractionMachine LearningSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
11works
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

11 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective

Current literature and public discourse on "trust in AI" are often focused on the principles underlying trustworthy AI, with insufficient attention paid to how people develop trust. Given that AI systems differ in their level of trustworthiness, two open questions come to the fore: how should AI trustworthiness be responsibly communicated to ensure appropriate and equitable trust judgments by different users, and how can we protect users from deceptive attempts to earn their trust? We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH, which describes how trustworthiness is communicated in AI systems through trustworthiness cues and how those cues are processed by people to make trust judgments. Besides AI-generated content, we highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. By bringing to light the variety of users' cognitive processes to make trust judgments and their potential limitations, we urge technology creators to make conscious decisions in choosing reliable trustworthiness cues for target users and, as an industry, to regulate this space and prevent malicious use. Towards these goals, we define the concepts of warranted trustworthiness cues and expensive trustworthiness cues, and propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use. We present a hypothetical use case to illustrate how practitioners can use MATCH to design AI systems responsibly, and discuss future directions for research and industry efforts aimed at promoting responsible trust in AI.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Human-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderation

Despite impressive performance in many benchmark datasets, AI models can still make mistakes, especially among out-of-distribution examples. It remains an open question how such imperfect models can be used effectively in collaboration with humans. Prior work has focused on AI assistance that helps people make individual high-stakes decisions, which is not scalable for a large amount of relatively low-stakes decisions, e.g., moderating social media comments. Instead, we propose conditional delegation as an alternative paradigm for human-AI collaboration where humans create rules to indicate trustworthy regions of a model. Using content moderation as a testbed, we develop novel interfaces to assist humans in creating conditional delegation rules and conduct a randomized experiment with two datasets to simulate in-distribution and out-of-distribution scenarios. Our study demonstrates the promise of conditional delegation in improving model performance and provides insights into design for this novel paradigm, including the effect of AI explanations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiences

In recent years, the field of explainable AI (XAI) has produced a vast collection of algorithms, providing a useful toolbox for researchers and practitioners to build XAI applications. With the rich application opportunities, explainability is believed to have moved beyond a demand by data scientists or researchers to comprehend the models they develop, to an essential requirement for people to trust and adopt AI deployed in numerous domains. However, explainability is an inherently human-centric property and the field is starting to embrace human-centered approaches. Human-computer interaction (HCI) research and user experience (UX) design in this area are becoming increasingly important. In this chapter, we begin with a high-level overview of the technical landscape of XAI algorithms, then selectively survey our own and other recent HCI works that take human-centered approaches to design, evaluate, and provide conceptual and methodological tools for XAI. We ask the question "what are human-centered approaches doing for XAI" and highlight three roles that they play in shaping XAI technologies by helping navigate, assess and expand the XAI toolbox: to drive technical choices by users' explainability needs, to uncover pitfalls of existing XAI methods and inform new methods, and to provide conceptual frameworks for human-compatible XAI.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design

What does it mean for a generative AI model to be explainable? The emergent discipline of explainable AI (XAI) has made great strides in helping people understand discriminative models. Less attention has been paid to generative models that produce artifacts, rather than decisions, as output. Meanwhile, generative AI (GenAI) technologies are maturing and being applied to application domains such as software engineering. Using scenario-based design and question-driven XAI design approaches, we explore users' explainability needs for GenAI in three software engineering use cases: natural language to code, code translation, and code auto-completion. We conducted 9 workshops with 43 software engineers in which real examples from state-of-the-art generative AI models were used to elicit users' explainability needs. Drawing from prior work, we also propose 4 types of XAI features for GenAI for code and gathered additional design ideas from participants. Our work explores explainability needs for GenAI for code and demonstrates how human-centered approaches can drive the technical development of XAI in novel domains.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

AI Explainability 360: Impact and Design

As artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms become increasingly prevalent in society, multiple stakeholders are calling for these algorithms to provide explanations. At the same time, these stakeholders, whether they be affected citizens, government regulators, domain experts, or system developers, have different explanation needs. To address these needs, in 2019, we created AI Explainability 360 (Arya et al. 2020), an open source software toolkit featuring ten diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods and two evaluation metrics. This paper examines the impact of the toolkit with several case studies, statistics, and community feedback. The different ways in which users have experienced AI Explainability 360 have resulted in multiple types of impact and improvements in multiple metrics, highlighted by the adoption of the toolkit by the independent LF AI & Data Foundation. The paper also describes the flexible design of the toolkit, examples of its use, and the significant educational material and documentation available to its users.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Expanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systems

As AI-powered systems increasingly mediate consequential decision-making, their explainability is critical for end-users to take informed and accountable actions. Explanations in human-human interactions are socially-situated. AI systems are often socio-organizationally embedded. However, Explainable AI (XAI) approaches have been predominantly algorithm-centered. We take a developmental step towards socially-situated XAI by introducing and exploring Social Transparency (ST), a sociotechnically informed perspective that incorporates the socio-organizational context into explaining AI-mediated decision-making. To explore ST conceptually, we conducted interviews with 29 AI users and practitioners grounded in a speculative design scenario. We suggested constitutive design elements of ST and developed a conceptual framework to unpack ST's effect and implications at the technical, decision-making, and organizational level. The framework showcases how ST can potentially calibrate trust in AI, improve decision-making, facilitate organizational collective actions, and cultivate holistic explainability. Our work contributes to the discourse of Human-Centered XAI by expanding the design space of XAI.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

How Much Automation Does a Data Scientist Want?

Data science and machine learning (DS/ML) are at the heart of the recent advancements of many Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications. There is an active research thread in AI, \autoai, that aims to develop systems for automating end-to-end the DS/ML Lifecycle. However, do DS and ML workers really want to automate their DS/ML workflow? To answer this question, we first synthesize a human-centered AutoML framework with 6 User Role/Personas, 10 Stages and 43 Sub-Tasks, 5 Levels of Automation, and 5 Types of Explanation, through reviewing research literature and marketing reports. Secondly, we use the framework to guide the design of an online survey study with 217 DS/ML workers who had varying degrees of experience, and different user roles "matching" to our 6 roles/personas. We found that different user personas participated in distinct stages of the lifecycle -- but not all stages. Their desired levels of automation and types of explanation for AutoML also varied significantly depending on the DS/ML stage and the user persona. Based on the survey results, we argue there is no rationale from user needs for complete automation of the end-to-end DS/ML lifecycle. We propose new next steps for user-controlled DS/ML automation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Active Learning++: Incorporating Annotator's Rationale using Local Model Explanation

We propose a new active learning (AL) framework, Active Learning++, which can utilize an annotator's labels as well as its rationale. Annotators can provide their rationale for choosing a label by ranking input features based on their importance for a given query. To incorporate this additional input, we modified the disagreement measure for a bagging-based Query by Committee (QBC) sampling strategy. Instead of weighing all committee models equally to select the next instance, we assign higher weight to the committee model with higher agreement with the annotator's ranking. Specifically, we generated a feature importance-based local explanation for each committee model. The similarity score between feature rankings provided by the annotator and the local model explanation is used to assign a weight to each corresponding committee model. This approach is applicable to any kind of ML model using model-agnostic techniques to generate local explanation such as LIME. With a simulation study, we show that our framework significantly outperforms a QBC based vanilla AL framework.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making

Today, AI is being increasingly used to help human experts make decisions in high-stakes scenarios. In these scenarios, full automation is often undesirable, not only due to the significance of the outcome, but also because human experts can draw on their domain knowledge complementary to the model's to ensure task success. We refer to these scenarios as AI-assisted decision making, where the individual strengths of the human and the AI come together to optimize the joint decision outcome. A key to their success is to appropriately \textit{calibrate} human trust in the AI on a case-by-case basis; knowing when to trust or distrust the AI allows the human expert to appropriately apply their knowledge, improving decision outcomes in cases where the model is likely to perform poorly. This research conducts a case study of AI-assisted decision making in which humans and AI have comparable performance alone, and explores whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. Specifically, we study the effect of showing confidence score and local explanation for a particular prediction. Through two human experiments, we show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making, which may also depend on whether the human can bring in enough unique knowledge to complement the AI's errors. We also highlight the problems in using local explanation for AI-assisted decision making scenarios and invite the research community to explore new approaches to explainability for calibrating human trust in AI.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Measuring Social Biases of Crowd Workers using Counterfactual Queries

Social biases based on gender, race, etc. have been shown to pollute machine learning (ML) pipeline predominantly via biased training datasets. Crowdsourcing, a popular cost-effective measure to gather labeled training datasets, is not immune to the inherent social biases of crowd workers. To ensure such social biases aren't passed onto the curated datasets, it's important to know how biased each crowd worker is. In this work, we propose a new method based on counterfactual fairness to quantify the degree of inherent social bias in each crowd worker. This extra information can be leveraged together with individual worker responses to curate a less biased dataset.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Tell Me About Yourself: Using an AI-Powered Chatbot to Conduct Conversational Surveys with Open-ended Questions

The rise of increasingly more powerful chatbots offers a new way to collect information through conversational surveys, where a chatbot asks open-ended questions, interprets a user's free-text responses, and probes answers whenever needed. To investigate the effectiveness and limitations of such a chatbot in conducting surveys, we conducted a field study involving about 600 participants. In this study with mostly open-ended questions, half of the participants took a typical online survey on Qualtrics and the other half interacted with an AI-powered chatbot to complete a conversational survey. Our detailed analysis of over 5200 free-text responses revealed that the chatbot drove a significantly higher level of participant engagement and elicited significantly better quality responses measured by Gricean Maxims in terms of their informativeness, relevance, specificity, and clarity. Based on our results, we discuss design implications for creating AI-powered chatbots to conduct effective surveys and beyond.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access