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

Tim Miller

Tim Miller contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer InteractionMachine Learningastro-ph.GAcs.CYastro-ph.COComputation and LanguageMultiagent Systems

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
12works
0followers
8topics
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

12 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A giant shell of ionized gas discovered near M82 with the Dragonfly Spectral Line Mapper pathfinder

We present the discovery of a giant cloud of ionized gas in the field of the starbursting galaxy M82. Emission from the cloud is seen in H$α$ and [NII]$λ$6583 in data obtained though a small pathfinder instrument used to test the key ideas that will be implemented in the Dragonfly Spectral Line Mapper, an upcoming ultranarrow-bandpass imaging version of the Dragonfly Telephoto Array. The discovered cloud has a shell-like morphology with a linear extent of $0.8^{\circ}$ and is positioned $0.6^{\circ}$ northwest of M82. At the heliocentric distance of the M81 group, the cloud's extent corresponds to 55 kpc and its projected distance from the nucleus of M82 is 40 kpc. The cloud has an average H$α$ surface brightness of $2\times10^{-18}$ $\mathrm{erg} ~\mathrm{cm}^{-2} ~\mathrm{s}^{-1} ~\mathrm{arcsec}^{-2}$. The [NII]$λ$6583/H$α$ line ratio varies from [NII]/H$α$ $\sim0.2$ to [NII]/H$α$ $\sim1.0$ across the cloud, with higher values found in its eastern end. Follow-up spectra obtained with Keck-LRIS confirm the existence of the cloud and yield line ratios of [NII]$λ$6583/H$α$ = 0.340 $\pm$ 0.003 and [SII]$λ$6716,6731/H$α$ = 0.64 $\pm$ 0.03 in the cloud. This giant cloud of material could be lifted from M82 by tidal interactions or by its powerful starburst. Alternatively, it may be gas infalling from the cosmic web, potentially precipitated by the superwinds of M82. Deeper data are needed to test these ideas further. The upcoming Dragonfly Spectral Line Mapper will have 120 lenses, $40\times$ more than in the pathfinder instrument used to obtain the data presented here.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Are we measuring trust correctly in explainability, interpretability, and transparency research?

This paper presents an argument for why we are not measuring trust sufficiently in explainability, interpretability, and transparency research. Most studies ask participants to complete a trust scale to rate their trust of a model that has been explained/interpreted. If the trust is increased, we consider this a positive. However, there are two issues with this. First, we usually have no way of knowing whether participants should trust the model. Trust should surely decrease if a model is of poor quality. Second, these scales measure perceived trust rather than demonstrated trust. This paper showcases three methods that do a good job at measuring perceived and demonstrated trust. It is intended to be starting point for discussion on this topic, rather than to be the final say. The author invites critique and discussion.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Improving Model Understanding and Trust with Counterfactual Explanations of Model Confidence

In this paper, we show that counterfactual explanations of confidence scores help users better understand and better trust an AI model's prediction in human-subject studies. Showing confidence scores in human-agent interaction systems can help build trust between humans and AI systems. However, most existing research only used the confidence score as a form of communication, and we still lack ways to explain why the algorithm is confident. This paper also presents two methods for understanding model confidence using counterfactual explanation: (1) based on counterfactual examples; and (2) based on visualisation of the counterfactual space.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Rapid build-up of the stellar content in the protocluster core SPT2349$-$56 at $z\,{=}\,4.3$

The protocluster SPT2349$-$56 at $z\,{=}\,4.3$ contains one of the most actively star-forming cores known, yet constraints on the total stellar mass of this system are highly uncertain. We have therefore carried out deep optical and infrared observations of this system, probing rest-frame ultraviolet to infrared wavelengths. Using the positions of the spectroscopically-confirmed protocluster members, we identify counterparts and perform detailed source deblending, allowing us to fit spectral energy distributions in order to estimate stellar masses. We show that the galaxies in SPT2349$-$56 have stellar masses proportional to their high star-formation rates, consistent with other protocluster galaxies and field submillimetre galaxies (SMGs) around redshift 4. The galaxies in SPT2349$-$56 have on average lower molecular gas-to-stellar mass fractions and depletion timescales than field SMGs, although with considerable scatter. We construct the stellar-mass function for SPT2349$-$56 and compare it to the stellar-mass function of $z\,{=}\,1$ galaxy clusters, finding consistent shapes between the two. We measure rest-frame galaxy ultraviolet half-light radii from our HST-F160W imaging, finding that on average the galaxies in our sample are similar in size to typical star-forming galaxies at these redshifts. However, the brightest HST-detected galaxy in our sample, found near the luminosity-weighted centre of the protocluster core, remains unresolved at this wavelength. Hydrodynamical simulations predict that the core galaxies will quickly merge into a brightest cluster galaxy, thus our observations provide a direct view of the early formation mechanisms of this class of object.

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

Deceptive Reinforcement Learning for Privacy-Preserving Planning

In this paper, we study the problem of deceptive reinforcement learning to preserve the privacy of a reward function. Reinforcement learning is the problem of finding a behaviour policy based on rewards received from exploratory behaviour. A key ingredient in reinforcement learning is a reward function, which determines how much reward (negative or positive) is given and when. However, in some situations, we may want to keep a reward function private; that is, to make it difficult for an observer to determine the reward function used. We define the problem of privacy-preserving reinforcement learning, and present two models for solving it. These models are based on dissimulation -- a form of deception that `hides the truth'. We evaluate our models both computationally and via human behavioural experiments. Results show that the resulting policies are indeed deceptive, and that participants can determine the true reward function less reliably than that of an honest agent.

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
preprint2021arXiv

Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI

Trust is a central component of the interaction between people and AI, in that &#39;incorrect&#39; levels of trust may cause misuse, abuse or disuse of the technology. But what, precisely, is the nature of trust in AI? What are the prerequisites and goals of the cognitive mechanism of trust, and how can we promote them, or assess whether they are being satisfied in a given interaction? This work aims to answer these questions. We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology&#39;s interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people). This model rests on two key properties of the vulnerability of the user and the ability to anticipate the impact of the AI model&#39;s decisions. We incorporate a formalization of &#39;contractual trust&#39;, such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold, and a formalization of &#39;trustworthiness&#39; (which detaches from the notion of trustworthiness in sociology), and with it concepts of &#39;warranted&#39; and &#39;unwarranted&#39; trust. We then present the possible causes of warranted trust as intrinsic reasoning and extrinsic behavior, and discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted. Finally, we elucidate the connection between trust and XAI using our formalization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Distal Explanations for Model-free Explainable Reinforcement Learning

In this paper we introduce and evaluate a distal explanation model for model-free reinforcement learning agents that can generate explanations for `why&#39; and `why not&#39; questions. Our starting point is the observation that causal models can generate opportunity chains that take the form of `A enables B and B causes C&#39;. Using insights from an analysis of 240 explanations generated in a human-agent experiment, we define a distal explanation model that can analyse counterfactuals and opportunity chains using decision trees and causal models. A recurrent neural network is employed to learn opportunity chains, and decision trees are used to improve the accuracy of task prediction and the generated counterfactuals. We computationally evaluate the model in 6 reinforcement learning benchmarks using different reinforcement learning algorithms. From a study with 90 human participants, we show that our distal explanation model results in improved outcomes over three scenarios compared with two baseline explanation models.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Federated pretraining and fine tuning of BERT using clinical notes from multiple silos

Large scale contextual representation models, such as BERT, have significantly advanced natural language processing (NLP) in recently years. However, in certain area like healthcare, accessing diverse large scale text data from multiple institutions is extremely challenging due to privacy and regulatory reasons. In this article, we show that it is possible to both pretrain and fine tune BERT models in a federated manner using clinical texts from different silos without moving the data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access