Karrie Karahalios

Ziang Xiao, Tiffany Wenting Li, Karrie Karahalios et al. · microsoft-research

Informed consent is a core cornerstone of ethics in human subject research. Through the informed consent process, participants learn about the study procedure, benefits, risks, and more to make an informed decision. However, recent studies showed that current practices might lead to uninformed decisions and expose participants to unknown risks, especially in online studies. Without the researcher's presence and guidance, online participants must read a lengthy form on their own with no answers to their questions. In this paper, we examined the role of an AI-powered chatbot in improving informed consent online. By comparing the chatbot with form-based interaction, we found the chatbot improved consent form reading, promoted participants' feelings of agency, and closed the power gap between the participant and the researcher. Our exploratory analysis further revealed the altered power dynamic might eventually benefit study response quality. We discussed design implications for creating AI-powered chatbots to offer effective informed consent in broader settings.

Yubin Ge, Ziang Xiao, Jana Diesner et al. · microsoft-research

Generating follow-up questions on the fly could significantly improve conversational survey quality and user experiences by enabling a more dynamic and personalized survey structure. In this paper, we proposed a novel task for knowledge-driven follow-up question generation in conversational surveys. We constructed a new human-annotated dataset of human-written follow-up questions with dialogue history and labeled knowledge in the context of conversational surveys. Along with the dataset, we designed and validated a set of reference-free Gricean-inspired evaluation metrics to systematically evaluate the quality of generated follow-up questions. We then propose a two-staged knowledge-driven model for the task, which generates informative and coherent follow-up questions by using knowledge to steer the generation process. The experiments demonstrate that compared to GPT-based baseline models, our two-staged model generates more informative, coherent, and clear follow-up questions.

Vinay Koshy, Frederick Choi, Yi-Shyuan Chiang et al.

Research into community content moderation often assumes that moderation teams govern with a single, unified voice. However, recent work has found that moderators disagree with one another at modest, but concerning rates. The problem is not the root disagreements themselves. Subjectivity in moderation is unavoidable, and there are clear benefits to including diverse perspectives within a moderation team. Instead, the crux of the issue is that, due to resource constraints, moderation decisions end up being made by individual decision-makers. The result is decision-making that is inconsistent, which is frustrating for community members. To address this, we develop Venire, an ML-backed system for panel review on Reddit. Venire uses a machine learning model trained on log data to identify the cases where moderators are most likely to disagree. Venire fast-tracks these cases for multi-person review. Ideally, Venire allows moderators to surface and resolve disagreements that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. We conduct three studies through which we design and evaluate Venire: a set of formative interviews with moderators, technical evaluations on two datasets, and a think-aloud study in which moderators used Venire to make decisions on real moderation cases. Quantitatively, we demonstrate that Venire is able to improve decision consistency and surface latent disagreements. Qualitatively, we find that Venire helps moderators resolve difficult moderation cases more confidently. Venire represents a novel paradigm for human-AI content moderation, and shifts the conversation from replacing human decision-making to supporting it.

Aditya Karan, Nicholas Vincent, Karrie Karahalios et al.

Given that data-dependent algorithmic systems have become impactful in more domains of life, the need for individuals to promote their own interests and hold algorithms accountable has grown. To have meaningful influence, individuals must band together to engage in collective action. Groups that engage in such algorithmic collective action are likely to vary in size, membership characteristics, and crucially, objectives. In this work, we introduce a first of a kind framework for studying collective action with two or more collectives that strategically behave to manipulate data-driven systems. With more than one collective acting on a system, unexpected interactions may occur. We use this framework to conduct experiments with language model-based classifiers and recommender systems where two collectives each attempt to achieve their own individual objectives. We examine how differing objectives, strategies, sizes, and homogeneity can impact a collective's efficacy. We find that the unintentional interactions between collectives can be quite significant; a collective acting in isolation may be able to achieve their objective (e.g., improve classification outcomes for themselves or promote a particular item), but when a second collective acts simultaneously, the efficacy of the first group drops by as much as $75\%$. We find that, in the recommender system context, neither fully heterogeneous nor fully homogeneous collectives stand out as most efficacious and that heterogeneity's impact is secondary compared to collective size. Our results signal the need for more transparency in both the underlying algorithmic models and the different behaviors individuals or collectives may take on these systems. This approach also allows collectives to hold algorithmic system developers accountable and provides a framework for people to actively use their own data to promote their own interests.

Doris Jung-Lin Lee, Vidya Setlur, Melanie Tory et al.

Visualization recommendation (VisRec) systems provide users with suggestions for potentially interesting and useful next steps during exploratory data analysis. These recommendations are typically organized into categories based on their analytical actions, i.e., operations employed to transition from the current exploration state to a recommended visualization. However, despite the emergence of a plethora of VisRec systems in recent work, the utility of the categories employed by these systems in analytical workflows has not been systematically investigated. Our paper explores the efficacy of recommendation categories by formalizing a taxonomy of common categories and developing a system, Frontier, that implements these categories. Using Frontier, we evaluate workflow strategies adopted by users and how categories influence those strategies. Participants found recommendations that add attributes to enhance the current visualization and recommendations that filter to sub-populations to be comparatively most useful during data exploration. Our findings pave the way for next-generation VisRec systems that are adaptive and personalized via carefully chosen, effective recommendation categories.

Kelly Mack, John Lee, Kevin Chang et al.

In traditional usability studies, researchers talk to users of tools to understand their needs and challenges. Insights gained via such interviews offer context, detail, and background. Due to costs in time and money, we are beginning to see a new form of tool interrogation that prioritizes scale, cost, and breadth by utilizing existing data from online forums. In this case study, we set out to apply this method of using online forum data to a specific issue---challenges that users face with Excel spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are a versatile and powerful processing tool if used properly. However, with versatility and power come errors, from both users and the software, which make using spreadsheets less effective. By scraping posts from the website Reddit, we collected a dataset of questions and complaints about Excel. Specifically, we explored and characterized the issues users were facing with spreadsheet software in general, and in particular, as resulting from a large amount of data in their spreadsheets. We discuss the implications of our findings on the design of next-generation spreadsheet software.

Doris Jung-Lin Lee, John Lee, Tarique Siddiqui et al.

Visual query systems (VQSs) empower users to interactively search for line charts with desired visual patterns, typically specified using intuitive sketch-based interfaces. Despite decades of past work on VQSs, these efforts have not translated to adoption in practice, possibly because VQSs are largely evaluated in unrealistic lab-based settings. To remedy this gap in adoption, we collaborated with experts from three diverse domains---astronomy, genetics, and material science---via a year-long user-centered design process to develop a VQS that supports their workflow and analytical needs, and evaluate how VQSs can be used in practice. Our study results reveal that ad-hoc sketch-only querying is not as commonly used as prior work suggests, since analysts are often unable to precisely express their patterns of interest. In addition, we characterize three essential sensemaking processes supported by our enhanced VQS. We discover that participants employ all three processes, but in different proportions, depending on the analytical needs in each domain. Our findings suggest that all three sensemaking processes must be integrated in order to make future VQSs useful for a wide range of analytical inquiries.

Juhi Kulshrestha, Motahhare Eslami, Johnnatan Messias et al.

Search systems in online social media sites are frequently used to find information about ongoing events and people. For topics with multiple competing perspectives, such as political events or political candidates, bias in the top ranked results significantly shapes public opinion. However, bias does not emerge from an algorithm alone. It is important to distinguish between the bias that arises from the data that serves as the input to the ranking system and the bias that arises from the ranking system itself. In this paper, we propose a framework to quantify these distinct biases and apply this framework to politics-related queries on Twitter. We found that both the input data and the ranking system contribute significantly to produce varying amounts of bias in the search results and in different ways. We discuss the consequences of these biases and possible mechanisms to signal this bias in social media search systems' interfaces.