Andrea Papenmeier

Christine Bauer, Li Chen, Nicola Ferro et al.

During the workshop, we deeply discussed what CONversational Information ACcess (CONIAC) is and its unique features, proposing a world model abstracting it, and defined the Conversational Agents Framework for Evaluation (CAFE) for the evaluation of CONIAC systems, consisting of six major components: 1) goals of the system's stakeholders, 2) user tasks to be studied in the evaluation, 3) aspects of the users carrying out the tasks, 4) evaluation criteria to be considered, 5) evaluation methodology to be applied, and 6) measures for the quantitative criteria chosen.

Andrea Papenmeier, Alfred Sliwa, Dagmar Kern et al.

With the rise of voice assistants and an increase in mobile search usage, natural language has become an important query language. So far, most of the current systems are not able to process these queries because of the vagueness and ambiguity in natural language. Users have adapted their query formulation to what they think the search engine is capable of, which adds to their cognitive burden. With our research, we contribute to the design of interactive search systems by investigating the genuine information need in a product search scenario. In a crowd-sourcing experiment, we collected 132 information needs in natural language. We examine the vagueness of the formulations and their match to retailer-generated content and user-generated product reviews. Our findings reveal high variance on the level of vagueness and the potential of user reviews as a source for supporting users with rather vague search intents.

Andrea Papenmeier, Gwenn Englebienne, Christin Seifert

Machine learning systems have become popular in fields such as marketing, financing, or data mining. While they are highly accurate, complex machine learning systems pose challenges for engineers and users. Their inherent complexity makes it impossible to easily judge their fairness and the correctness of statistically learned relations between variables and classes. Explainable AI aims to solve this challenge by modelling explanations alongside with the classifiers, potentially improving user trust and acceptance. However, users should not be fooled by persuasive, yet untruthful explanations. We therefore conduct a user study in which we investigate the effects of model accuracy and explanation fidelity, i.e. how truthfully the explanation represents the underlying model, on user trust. Our findings show that accuracy is more important for user trust than explainability. Adding an explanation for a classification result can potentially harm trust, e.g. when adding nonsensical explanations. We also found that users cannot be tricked by high-fidelity explanations into having trust for a bad classifier. Furthermore, we found a mismatch between observed (implicit) and self-reported (explicit) trust.