Mihaela Vorvoreanu

Zijie J. Wang, Alex Kale, Harsha Nori et al. · gatech, microsoft-research

Machine learning (ML) interpretability techniques can reveal undesirable patterns in data that models exploit to make predictions--potentially causing harms once deployed. However, how to take action to address these patterns is not always clear. In a collaboration between ML and human-computer interaction researchers, physicians, and data scientists, we develop GAM Changer, the first interactive system to help domain experts and data scientists easily and responsibly edit Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) and fix problematic patterns. With novel interaction techniques, our tool puts interpretability into action--empowering users to analyze, validate, and align model behaviors with their knowledge and values. Physicians have started to use our tool to investigate and fix pneumonia and sepsis risk prediction models, and an evaluation with 7 data scientists working in diverse domains highlights that our tool is easy to use, meets their model editing needs, and fits into their current workflows. Built with modern web technologies, our tool runs locally in users' web browsers or computational notebooks, lowering the barrier to use. GAM Changer is available at the following public demo link: https://interpret.ml/gam-changer.

Amy K. Heger, Liz B. Marquis, Mihaela Vorvoreanu et al. · microsoft-research

Data is central to the development and evaluation of machine learning (ML) models. However, the use of problematic or inappropriate datasets can result in harms when the resulting models are deployed. To encourage responsible AI practice through more deliberate reflection on datasets and transparency around the processes by which they are created, researchers and practitioners have begun to advocate for increased data documentation and have proposed several data documentation frameworks. However, there is little research on whether these data documentation frameworks meet the needs of ML practitioners, who both create and consume datasets. To address this gap, we set out to understand ML practitioners' data documentation perceptions, needs, challenges, and desiderata, with the goal of deriving design requirements that can inform future data documentation frameworks. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with 14 ML practitioners at a single large, international technology company. We had them answer a list of questions taken from datasheets for datasets (Gebru, 2021). Our findings show that current approaches to data documentation are largely ad hoc and myopic in nature. Participants expressed needs for data documentation frameworks to be adaptable to their contexts, integrated into their existing tools and workflows, and automated wherever possible. Despite the fact that data documentation frameworks are often motivated from the perspective of responsible AI, participants did not make the connection between the questions that they were asked to answer and their responsible AI implications. In addition, participants often had difficulties prioritizing the needs of dataset consumers and providing information that someone unfamiliar with their datasets might need to know. Based on these findings, we derive seven design requirements for future data documentation frameworks.

Shipi Dhanorkar, Samir Passi, Mihaela Vorvoreanu

Autonomous software agents hold promise to increase developer productivity but make mistakes and exhibit novel failure modes, making human oversight central to successful human-agent collaboration. Existing research on agent oversight is largely conceptual; normative frameworks exist, but how users actually oversee agents is less known. In this paper, we bridge this gap by providing early empirical anchors for the theoretical discourse on agent oversight. Drawing on interviews with 17 experienced developers, we conduct an exploratory inquiry examining what forms of emergent oversight work developers perform, when, and how. We also document the oversight challenges developers face and the strategies they have started using to address them. We found at least four forms of emergent oversight work: a priori control, co-planning, real-time monitoring, and post hoc review. We show that oversight work is not only reactive and retrospective, as portrayed in existing research, but also preventative and proactive. We describe situated oversight challenges (e.g., difficulty reviewing agent-generated code) and outline heuristics developers adopt to address such challenges (e.g., using test results as guarantees for code correctness). We conclude with high-level takeaways, future research directions, implications for the human-centered design of software agents and for software engineering practice, and limitations of our research.

Saleh Afroogh, Seyd Ishtiaque Ahmed, Petra Ahrweiler et al. · cmu

This study provides a cross-disciplinary examination of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches-focusing on deep neural networks (DNNs) and large language models (LLMs)-and identifies empirical and conceptual limitations in current XAI. We discuss critical symptoms that stem from deeper root causes (i.e., two paradoxes, two conceptual confusions, and five false assumptions). These fundamental problems within the current XAI research field reveal three insights: experimentally, XAI exhibits significant flaws; conceptually, it is paradoxical; and pragmatically, further attempts to reform the paradoxical XAI might exacerbate its confusion-demanding fundamental shifts and new research directions. To move beyond XAI's limitations, we propose a four-pronged synthesized paradigm shift toward reliable and certified AI development. These four components include: verification-focused Interactive AI (IAI) to establish scientific community protocols for certifying AI system performance rather than attempting post-hoc explanations, AI Epistemology for rigorous scientific foundations, User-Sensible AI to create context-aware systems tailored to specific user communities, and Model-Centered Interpretability for faithful technical analysis-together offering comprehensive post-XAI research directions.

Sam Yu-Te Lee, Jingya Chen, Albert Calzaretto et al.

Enterprise chatbots show promise in supporting knowledge workers in information synthesis tasks by retrieving context from large, heterogeneous databases before generating answers. However, when the retrieved context misaligns with user intentions, the chatbot often produces "irrelevantly right" responses that provide little value. In this work, we introduce VizCopilot, a prototype that incorporates visualization techniques to actively involve end-users in context alignment. By combining topic modeling with document visualization, VizCopilot enables human oversight and modification of retrieved context while keeping cognitive overhead manageable. We used VizCopilot as a design probe in a Research-through-Design study to evaluate the role of visualization in context alignment and to surface future design opportunities. Our findings show that visualization not only helps users detect and correct misaligned context but also encourages them to adapt their prompting strategies, enabling the system to retrieve more relevant context from the outset. At the same time, the study reveals limitations in verification support regarding close-reading and trust in AI summaries. We outline future directions for visualization-enhanced chatbots, focusing on personalization, proactivity, and sustainable human-AI collaboration.

Zijie J. Wang, Alex Kale, Harsha Nori et al.

Recent strides in interpretable machine learning (ML) research reveal that models exploit undesirable patterns in the data to make predictions, which potentially causes harms in deployment. However, it is unclear how we can fix these models. We present our ongoing work, GAM Changer, an open-source interactive system to help data scientists and domain experts easily and responsibly edit their Generalized Additive Models (GAMs). With novel visualization techniques, our tool puts interpretability into action -- empowering human users to analyze, validate, and align model behaviors with their knowledge and values. Built using modern web technologies, our tool runs locally in users' computational notebooks or web browsers without requiring extra compute resources, lowering the barrier to creating more responsible ML models. GAM Changer is available at https://interpret.ml/gam-changer.

Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Q. Vera Liao, Mihaela Vorvoreanu et al. · microsoft-research

Widely deployed large language models (LLMs) can produce convincing yet incorrect outputs, potentially misleading users who may rely on them as if they were correct. To reduce such overreliance, there have been calls for LLMs to communicate their uncertainty to end users. However, there has been little empirical work examining how users perceive and act upon LLMs' expressions of uncertainty. We explore this question through a large-scale, pre-registered, human-subject experiment (N=404) in which participants answer medical questions with or without access to responses from a fictional LLM-infused search engine. Using both behavioral and self-reported measures, we examine how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions (e.g., "I'm not sure, but...") decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. An exploratory analysis suggests that this increase can be attributed to reduced (but not fully eliminated) overreliance on incorrect answers. While we observe similar effects for uncertainty expressed from a general perspective (e.g., "It's not clear, but..."), these effects are weaker and not statistically significant. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters. This highlights the importance of user testing before deploying LLMs at scale.

Andrew Anderson, Jimena Noa Guevara, Fatima Moussaoui et al.

Motivations: Recent research has emerged on generally how to improve AI product user experiences, but relatively little is known about an AI product's inclusivity. For example, what kinds of users does it support well, and who does it leave out? And what changes in the product would make it more inclusive? Objectives: Our overall objective is to help fill this gap, investigating what kinds of diverse users an AI product leaves out, and how to act upon that knowledge. To bring actionability to our findings, we focus on users' diversity of problem-solving attributes. Thus, our specific objectives were: (1) to reveal whether participants with diverse problem-solving styles were left behind in a set of AI products; and (2) to relate participants' problem-solving diversity to their demographic diversity, specifically, gender and age. Methods: We performed 18 experiments, discarding two that failed manipulation checks. Each experiment was a 2x2 factorial experiment with online participants. Each experiment compared two AI products: one deliberately violating an HAI guideline and the other applying the guideline. For our first objective, we analyzed how much each AI product gained/lost inclusivity compared to its counterpart, where inclusivity was supportiveness to participants with particular problem-solving styles. For our second objective, we analyzed how participants' problem-solving styles aligned with their demographics, namely their genders and ages. Results & Implications: Participants' diverse problem-solving styles revealed six types of inclusivity results: (1) the AI products that followed an HAI guideline were almost always more inclusive across diversity of problem-solving styles than the products that did not follow that guideline-but the "who" that got most of the inclusivity varied widely by guideline and by problem-solving style...