Showing 1–9 of 9 results for author: Dugan, C

Facilitating Human-LLM Collaboration through Factuality Scores and Source Attributions

Authors: Hyo Jin Do, Rachel Ostrand, Justin D. Weisz, Casey Dugan, Prasanna Sattigeri, Dennis Wei, Keerthiram Murugesan, Werner Geyer

Abstract: While humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs), they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations". Technical advancements have been made in algorithms that detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses and attributing sections of those responses to specific source documents. However, there is limite… ▽ More While humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs), they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations". Technical advancements have been made in algorithms that detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses and attributing sections of those responses to specific source documents. However, there is limited research on how to effectively communicate this information to users in ways that will help them appropriately calibrate their trust toward LLMs. To address this issue, we conducted a scenario-based study (N=104) to systematically compare the impact of various design strategies for communicating factuality and source attribution on participants' ratings of trust, preferences, and ease in validating response accuracy. Our findings reveal that participants preferred a design in which phrases within a response were color-coded based on the computed factuality scores. Additionally, participants increased their trust ratings when relevant sections of the source material were highlighted or responses were annotated with reference numbers corresponding to those sources, compared to when they received no annotation in the source material. Our study offers practical design guidelines to facilitate human-LLM collaboration and it promotes a new human role to carefully evaluate and take responsibility for their use of LLM outputs. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Comments: Submitted to the Trust and Reliance in Evolving Human-AI Workflows (TREW) Workshop at CHI 2024

Helping the Helper: Supporting Peer Counselors via AI-Empowered Practice and Feedback

Authors: Shang-Ling Hsu, Raj Sanjay Shah, Prathik Senthil, Zahra Ashktorab, Casey Dugan, Werner Geyer, Diyi Yang

Abstract: Millions of users come to online peer counseling platforms to seek support on diverse topics ranging from relationship stress to anxiety. However, studies show that online peer support groups are not always as effective as expected largely due to users' negative experiences with unhelpful counselors. Peer counselors are key to the success of online peer counseling platforms, but most of them often… ▽ More Millions of users come to online peer counseling platforms to seek support on diverse topics ranging from relationship stress to anxiety. However, studies show that online peer support groups are not always as effective as expected largely due to users' negative experiences with unhelpful counselors. Peer counselors are key to the success of online peer counseling platforms, but most of them often do not have systematic ways to receive guidelines or supervision. In this work, we introduce CARE: an interactive AI-based tool to empower peer counselors through automatic suggestion generation. During the practical training stage, CARE helps diagnose which specific counseling strategies are most suitable in the given context and provides tailored example responses as suggestions. Counselors can choose to select, modify, or ignore any suggestion before replying to the support seeker. Building upon the Motivational Interviewing framework, CARE utilizes large-scale counseling conversation data together with advanced natural language generation techniques to achieve these functionalities. We demonstrate the efficacy of CARE by performing both quantitative evaluations and qualitative user studies through simulated chats and semi-structured interviews. We also find that CARE especially helps novice counselors respond better in challenging situations. △ Less

Submitted 15 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairness

Authors: Zahra Ashktorab, Benjamin Hoover, Mayank Agarwal, Casey Dugan, Werner Geyer, Hao Bang Yang, Mikhail Yurochkin

Abstract: Mitigating algorithmic bias is a critical task in the development and deployment of machine learning models. While several toolkits exist to aid machine learning practitioners in addressing fairness issues, little is known about the strategies practitioners employ to evaluate model fairness and what factors influence their assessment, particularly in the context of text classification. Two common… ▽ More Mitigating algorithmic bias is a critical task in the development and deployment of machine learning models. While several toolkits exist to aid machine learning practitioners in addressing fairness issues, little is known about the strategies practitioners employ to evaluate model fairness and what factors influence their assessment, particularly in the context of text classification. Two common approaches of evaluating the fairness of a model are group fairness and individual fairness. We run a study with Machine Learning practitioners (n=24) to understand the strategies used to evaluate models. Metrics presented to practitioners (group vs. individual fairness) impact which models they consider fair. Participants focused on risks associated with underpredicting/overpredicting and model sensitivity relative to identity token manipulations. We discover fairness assessment strategies involving personal experiences or how users form groups of identity tokens to test model fairness. We provide recommendations for interactive tools for evaluating fairness in text classification. △ Less

Submitted 1 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: To appear in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '23)

Increasing the Speed and Accuracy of Data LabelingThrough an AI Assisted Interface

Authors: Michael Desmond, Zahra Ashktorab, Michelle Brachman, Kristina Brimijoin, Evelyn Duesterwald, Casey Dugan, Catherine Finegan-Dollak, Michael Muller, Narendra Nath Joshi, Qian Pan, Aabhas Sharma

Abstract: Labeling data is an important step in the supervised machine learning lifecycle. It is a laborious human activity comprised of repeated decision making: the human labeler decides which of several potential labels to apply to each example. Prior work has shown that providing AI assistance can improve the accuracy of binary decision tasks. However, the role of AI assistance in more complex data-labe… ▽ More Labeling data is an important step in the supervised machine learning lifecycle. It is a laborious human activity comprised of repeated decision making: the human labeler decides which of several potential labels to apply to each example. Prior work has shown that providing AI assistance can improve the accuracy of binary decision tasks. However, the role of AI assistance in more complex data-labeling scenarios with a larger set of labels has not yet been explored. We designed an AI labeling assistant that uses a semi-supervised learning algorithm to predict the most probable labels for each example. We leverage these predictions to provide assistance in two ways: (i) providing a label recommendation and (ii) reducing the labeler's decision space by focusing their attention on only the most probable labels. We conducted a user study (n=54) to evaluate an AI-assisted interface for data labeling in this context. Our results highlight that the AI assistance improves both labeler accuracy and speed, especially when the labeler finds the correct label in the reduced label space. We discuss findings related to the presentation of AI assistance and design implications for intelligent labeling interfaces. △ Less

Submitted 8 April, 2021; originally announced April 2021.

Documentation Matters: Human-Centered AI System to Assist Data Science Code Documentation in Computational Notebooks

Authors: April Yi Wang, Dakuo Wang, Jaimie Drozdal, Michael Muller, Soya Park, Justin D. Weisz, Xuye Liu, Lingfei Wu, Casey Dugan

Abstract: Computational notebooks allow data scientists to express their ideas through a combination of code and documentation. However, data scientists often pay attention only to the code, and neglect creating or updating their documentation during quick iterations. Inspired by human documentation practices learned from 80 highly-voted Kaggle notebooks, we design and implement Themisto, an automated docum… ▽ More Computational notebooks allow data scientists to express their ideas through a combination of code and documentation. However, data scientists often pay attention only to the code, and neglect creating or updating their documentation during quick iterations. Inspired by human documentation practices learned from 80 highly-voted Kaggle notebooks, we design and implement Themisto, an automated documentation generation system to explore how human-centered AI systems can support human data scientists in the machine learning code documentation scenario. Themisto facilitates the creation of documentation via three approaches: a deep-learning-based approach to generate documentation for source code, a query-based approach to retrieve online API documentation for source code, and a user prompt approach to nudge users to write documentation. We evaluated Themisto in a within-subjects experiment with 24 data science practitioners, and found that automated documentation generation techniques reduced the time for writing documentation, reminded participants to document code they would have ignored, and improved participants' satisfaction with their computational notebook. △ Less

Submitted 17 August, 2022; v1 submitted 24 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

ACM Class: H.5.2

Journal ref: ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 29, 2, Article 17 (April 2022), 33 pages

AutoDS: Towards Human-Centered Automation of Data Science

Authors: Dakuo Wang, Josh Andres, Justin Weisz, Erick Oduor, Casey Dugan

Abstract: Data science (DS) projects often follow a lifecycle that consists of laborious tasks for data scientists and domain experts (e.g., data exploration, model training, etc.). Only till recently, machine learning(ML) researchers have developed promising automation techniques to aid data workers in these tasks. This paper introduces AutoDS, an automated machine learning (AutoML) system that aims to lev… ▽ More Data science (DS) projects often follow a lifecycle that consists of laborious tasks for data scientists and domain experts (e.g., data exploration, model training, etc.). Only till recently, machine learning(ML) researchers have developed promising automation techniques to aid data workers in these tasks. This paper introduces AutoDS, an automated machine learning (AutoML) system that aims to leverage the latest ML automation techniques to support data science projects. Data workers only need to upload their dataset, then the system can automatically suggest ML configurations, preprocess data, select algorithm, and train the model. These suggestions are presented to the user via a web-based graphical user interface and a notebook-based programming user interface. We studied AutoDS with 30 professional data scientists, where one group used AutoDS, and the other did not, to complete a data science project. As expected, AutoDS improves productivity; Yet surprisingly, we find that the models produced by the AutoDS group have higher quality and less errors, but lower human confidence scores. We reflect on the findings by presenting design implications for incorporating automation techniques into human work in the data science lifecycle. △ Less

Submitted 13 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

How Data Scientists Work Together With Domain Experts in Scientific Collaborations: To Find The Right Answer Or To Ask The Right Question?

Authors: Yaoli Mao, Dakuo Wang, Michael Muller, Kush R. Varshney, Ioana Baldini, Casey Dugan, AleksandraMojsilović

Abstract: In recent years there has been an increasing trend in which data scientists and domain experts work together to tackle complex scientific questions. However, such collaborations often face challenges. In this paper, we aim to decipher this collaboration complexity through a semi-structured interview study with 22 interviewees from teams of bio-medical scientists collaborating with data scientists.… ▽ More In recent years there has been an increasing trend in which data scientists and domain experts work together to tackle complex scientific questions. However, such collaborations often face challenges. In this paper, we aim to decipher this collaboration complexity through a semi-structured interview study with 22 interviewees from teams of bio-medical scientists collaborating with data scientists. In the analysis, we adopt the Olsons' four-dimensions framework proposed in Distance Matters to code interview transcripts. Our findings suggest that besides the glitches in the collaboration readiness, technology readiness, and coupling of work dimensions, the tensions that exist in the common ground building process influence the collaboration outcomes, and then persist in the actual collaboration process. In contrast to prior works' general account of building a high level of common ground, the breakdowns of content common ground together with the strengthen of process common ground in this process is more beneficial for scientific discovery. We discuss why that is and what the design suggestions are, and conclude the paper with future directions and limitations. △ Less

Submitted 8 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Human-AI Collaboration in Data Science: Exploring Data Scientists' Perceptions of Automated AI

Authors: Dakuo Wang, Justin D. Weisz, Michael Muller, Parikshit Ram, Werner Geyer, Casey Dugan, Yla Tausczik, Horst Samulowitz, Alexander Gray

Abstract: The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is changing our lives in many ways. One application domain is data science. New techniques in automating the creation of AI, known as AutoAI or AutoML, aim to automate the work practices of data scientists. AutoAI systems are capable of autonomously ingesting and pre-processing data, engineering new features, and creating and scoring models bas… ▽ More The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is changing our lives in many ways. One application domain is data science. New techniques in automating the creation of AI, known as AutoAI or AutoML, aim to automate the work practices of data scientists. AutoAI systems are capable of autonomously ingesting and pre-processing data, engineering new features, and creating and scoring models based on a target objectives (e.g. accuracy or run-time efficiency). Though not yet widely adopted, we are interested in understanding how AutoAI will impact the practice of data science. We conducted interviews with 20 data scientists who work at a large, multinational technology company and practice data science in various business settings. Our goal is to understand their current work practices and how these practices might change with AutoAI. Reactions were mixed: while informants expressed concerns about the trend of automating their jobs, they also strongly felt it was inevitable. Despite these concerns, they remained optimistic about their future job security due to a view that the future of data science work will be a collaboration between humans and AI systems, in which both automation and human expertise are indispensable. △ Less

Submitted 5 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Explaining Models: An Empirical Study of How Explanations Impact Fairness Judgment

Authors: Jonathan Dodge, Q. Vera Liao, Yunfeng Zhang, Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Casey Dugan

Abstract: Ensuring fairness of machine learning systems is a human-in-the-loop process. It relies on developers, users, and the general public to identify fairness problems and make improvements. To facilitate the process we need effective, unbiased, and user-friendly explanations that people can confidently rely on. Towards that end, we conducted an empirical study with four types of programmatically gener… ▽ More Ensuring fairness of machine learning systems is a human-in-the-loop process. It relies on developers, users, and the general public to identify fairness problems and make improvements. To facilitate the process we need effective, unbiased, and user-friendly explanations that people can confidently rely on. Towards that end, we conducted an empirical study with four types of programmatically generated explanations to understand how they impact people's fairness judgments of ML systems. With an experiment involving more than 160 Mechanical Turk workers, we show that: 1) Certain explanations are considered inherently less fair, while others can enhance people's confidence in the fairness of the algorithm; 2) Different fairness problems--such as model-wide fairness issues versus case-specific fairness discrepancies--may be more effectively exposed through different styles of explanation; 3) Individual differences, including prior positions and judgment criteria of algorithmic fairness, impact how people react to different styles of explanation. We conclude with a discussion on providing personalized and adaptive explanations to support fairness judgments of ML systems. △ Less

Submitted 22 January, 2019; originally announced January 2019.