Connor Baumler

Navita Goyal, Connor Baumler, Tin Nguyen et al.

AI systems have been known to amplify biases in real-world data. Explanations may help human-AI teams address these biases for fairer decision-making. Typically, explanations focus on salient input features. If a model is biased against some protected group, explanations may include features that demonstrate this bias, but when biases are realized through proxy features, the relationship between this proxy feature and the protected one may be less clear to a human. In this work, we study the effect of the presence of protected and proxy features on participants' perception of model fairness and their ability to improve demographic parity over an AI alone. Further, we examine how different treatments -- explanations, model bias disclosure and proxy correlation disclosure -- affect fairness perception and parity. We find that explanations help people detect direct but not indirect biases. Additionally, regardless of bias type, explanations tend to increase agreement with model biases. Disclosures can help mitigate this effect for indirect biases, improving both unfairness recognition and decision-making fairness. We hope that our findings can help guide further research into advancing explanations in support of fair human-AI decision-making.

Connor Baumler, Hal Daumé

AI-based systems such as language models have been shown to replicate and even amplify social biases reflected in their training data. Among other questionable behaviors, this can lead to AI-generated text--and text suggestions--that contain normatively inappropriate stereotypical associations. Little is known, however, about how this behavior impacts the writing produced by people using these systems. We address this gap by measuring how much impact stereotypes or anti-stereotypes in English single-word LM predictive text suggestions have on the stories that people write using those tools in a co-writing scenario. We find that ($n=414$), LM suggestions that challenge stereotypes sometimes lead to a significantly increased rate of anti-stereotypical co-written stories. However, despite this increased rate of anti-stereotypical stories, pro-stereotypical narratives still dominated the co-written stories, demonstrating that technical debiasing is only a partially effective strategy to alleviate harms from human-AI collaboration.

Navita Goyal, Eleftheria Briakou, Amanda Liu et al.

NLP systems have shown impressive performance at answering questions by retrieving relevant context. However, with the increasingly large models, it is impossible and often undesirable to constrain models' knowledge or reasoning to only the retrieved context. This leads to a mismatch between the information that the models access to derive the answer and the information that is available to the user to assess the model predicted answer. In this work, we study how users interact with QA systems in the absence of sufficient information to assess their predictions. Further, we ask whether adding the requisite background helps mitigate users' over-reliance on predictions. Our study reveals that users rely on model predictions even in the absence of sufficient information needed to assess the model's correctness. Providing the relevant background, however, helps users better catch model errors, reducing over-reliance on incorrect predictions. On the flip side, background information also increases users' confidence in their accurate as well as inaccurate judgments. Our work highlights that supporting users' verification of QA predictions is an important, yet challenging, problem.