Timothée Schmude

Sebastian Tschiatschek, Eugenia Stamboliev, Timothée Schmude et al.

We discuss the role of humans in algorithmic decision-making (ADM) for socially relevant problems from a technical and philosophical perspective. In particular, we illustrate tensions arising from diverse expectations, values, and constraints by and on the humans involved. To this end, we assume that a strategic decision-maker (SDM) introduces ADM to optimize strategic and societal goals while the algorithms' recommended actions are overseen by a practical decision-maker (PDM) - a specific human-in-the-loop - who makes the final decisions. While the PDM is typically assumed to be a corrective, it can counteract the realization of the SDM's desired goals and societal values not least because of a misalignment of these values and unmet information needs of the PDM. This has significant implications for the distribution of power between the stakeholders in ADM, their constraints, and information needs. In particular, we emphasize the overseeing PDM's role as a potential political and ethical decision maker, who acts expected to balance strategic, value-driven objectives and on-the-ground individual decisions and constraints. We demonstrate empirically, on a machine learning benchmark dataset, the significant impact an overseeing PDM's decisions can have even if the PDM is constrained to performing only a limited amount of actions differing from the algorithms' recommendations. To ensure that the SDM's intended values are realized, the PDM needs to be provided with appropriate information conveyed through tailored explanations and its role must be characterized clearly. Our findings emphasize the need for an in-depth discussion of the role and power of the PDM and challenge the often-taken view that just including a human-in-the-loop in ADM ensures the 'correct' and 'ethical' functioning of the system.

Timothée Schmude, Laura Koesten, Torsten Möller et al.

Every AI system that makes decisions about people has a group of stakeholders that are personally affected by these decisions. However, explanations of AI systems rarely address the information needs of this stakeholder group, who often are AI novices. This creates a gap between conveyed information and information that matters to those who are impacted by the system's decisions, such as domain experts and decision subjects. To address this, we present the "XAI Novice Question Bank," an extension of the XAI Question Bank containing a catalog of information needs from AI novices in two use cases: employment prediction and health monitoring. The catalog covers the categories of data, system context, system usage, and system specifications. We gathered information needs through task-based interviews where participants asked questions about two AI systems to decide on their adoption and received verbal explanations in response. Our analysis showed that participants' confidence increased after receiving explanations but that their understanding faced challenges. These included difficulties in locating information and in assessing their own understanding, as well as attempts to outsource understanding. Additionally, participants' prior perceptions of the systems' risks and benefits influenced their information needs. Participants who perceived high risks sought explanations about the intentions behind a system's deployment, while those who perceived low risks rather asked about the system's operation. Our work aims to support the inclusion of AI novices in explainability efforts by highlighting their information needs, aims, and challenges. We summarize our findings as five key implications that can inform the design of future explanations for lay stakeholder audiences.

Timothée Schmude, Laura Koesten, Torsten Möller et al.

We argue that explanations for "algorithmic decision-making" (ADM) systems can profit by adopting practices that are already used in the learning sciences. We shortly introduce the importance of explaining ADM systems, give a brief overview of approaches drawing from other disciplines to improve explanations, and present the results of our qualitative task-based study incorporating the "six facets of understanding" framework. We close with questions guiding the discussion of how future studies can leverage an interdisciplinary approach.