Luke Guerdan

Anna Kawakami, Luke Guerdan, Yanghuidi Cheng et al. · cmu

A growing body of research has explored how to support humans in making better use of AI-based decision support, including via training and onboarding. Existing research has focused on decision-making tasks where it is possible to evaluate "appropriate reliance" by comparing each decision against a ground truth label that cleanly maps to both the AI's predictive target and the human decision-maker's goals. However, this assumption does not hold in many real-world settings where AI tools are deployed today (e.g., social work, criminal justice, and healthcare). In this paper, we introduce a process-oriented notion of appropriate reliance called critical use that centers the human's ability to situate AI predictions against knowledge that is uniquely available to them but unavailable to the AI model. To explore how training can support critical use, we conduct a randomized online experiment in a complex social decision-making setting: child maltreatment screening. We find that, by providing participants with accelerated, low-stakes opportunities to practice AI-assisted decision-making in this setting, novices came to exhibit patterns of disagreement with AI that resemble those of experienced workers. A qualitative examination of participants' explanations for their AI-assisted decisions revealed that they drew upon qualitative case narratives, to which the AI model did not have access, to learn when (not) to rely on AI predictions. Our findings open new questions for the study and design of training for real-world AI-assisted decision-making.

Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Zhiwei Steven Wu et al.

A growing literature on human-AI decision-making investigates strategies for combining human judgment with statistical models to improve decision-making. Research in this area often evaluates proposed improvements to models, interfaces, or workflows by demonstrating improved predictive performance on "ground truth" labels. However, this practice overlooks a key difference between human judgments and model predictions. Whereas humans reason about broader phenomena of interest in a decision -- including latent constructs that are not directly observable, such as disease status, the "toxicity" of online comments, or future "job performance" -- predictive models target proxy labels that are readily available in existing datasets. Predictive models' reliance on simplistic proxies makes them vulnerable to various sources of statistical bias. In this paper, we identify five sources of target variable bias that can impact the validity of proxy labels in human-AI decision-making tasks. We develop a causal framework to disentangle the relationship between each bias and clarify which are of concern in specific human-AI decision-making tasks. We demonstrate how our framework can be used to articulate implicit assumptions made in prior modeling work, and we recommend evaluation strategies for verifying whether these assumptions hold in practice. We then leverage our framework to re-examine the designs of prior human subjects experiments that investigate human-AI decision-making, finding that only a small fraction of studies examine factors related to target variable bias. We conclude by discussing opportunities to better address target variable bias in future research.

Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Kenneth Holstein et al.

Across domains such as medicine, employment, and criminal justice, predictive models often target labels that imperfectly reflect the outcomes of interest to experts and policymakers. For example, clinical risk assessments deployed to inform physician decision-making often predict measures of healthcare utilization (e.g., costs, hospitalization) as a proxy for patient medical need. These proxies can be subject to outcome measurement error when they systematically differ from the target outcome they are intended to measure. However, prior modeling efforts to characterize and mitigate outcome measurement error overlook the fact that the decision being informed by a model often serves as a risk-mitigating intervention that impacts the target outcome of interest and its recorded proxy. Thus, in these settings, addressing measurement error requires counterfactual modeling of treatment effects on outcomes. In this work, we study intersectional threats to model reliability introduced by outcome measurement error, treatment effects, and selection bias from historical decision-making policies. We develop an unbiased risk minimization method which, given knowledge of proxy measurement error properties, corrects for the combined effects of these challenges. We also develop a method for estimating treatment-dependent measurement error parameters when these are unknown in advance. We demonstrate the utility of our approach theoretically and via experiments on real-world data from randomized controlled trials conducted in healthcare and employment domains. As importantly, we demonstrate that models correcting for outcome measurement error or treatment effects alone suffer from considerable reliability limitations. Our work underscores the importance of considering intersectional threats to model validity during the design and evaluation of predictive models for decision support.

Luke Guerdan, Solon Barocas, Kenneth Holstein et al.

The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm, in which a judge LLM system replaces human raters in rating the outputs of other generative AI (GenAI) systems, plays a critical role in scaling and standardizing GenAI evaluations. To validate such judge systems, evaluators assess human--judge agreement by first collecting multiple human ratings for each item in a validation corpus, then aggregating the ratings into a single, per-item gold label rating. For many items, however, rating criteria may admit multiple valid interpretations, so a human or LLM rater may deem multiple ratings "reasonable" or "correct." We call this condition rating indeterminacy. Problematically, many rating tasks that contain rating indeterminacy rely on forced-choice elicitation, whereby raters are instructed to select only one rating for each item. In this paper, we introduce a framework for validating LLM-as-a-judge systems under rating indeterminacy. We draw theoretical connections between different measures of judge system performance under different human--judge agreement metrics, and different rating elicitation and aggregation schemes. We demonstrate that differences in how humans and LLMs resolve rating indeterminacy when responding to forced-choice rating instructions can heavily bias LLM-as-a-judge validation. Through extensive experiments involving 11 real-world rating tasks and 9 commercial LLMs, we show that standard validation approaches that rely upon forced-choice ratings select judge systems that are highly suboptimal, performing as much as 31% worse than judge systems selected by our approach that uses multi-label "response set" ratings to account for rating indeterminacy. We conclude with concrete recommendations for more principled approaches to LLM-as-a-judge validation.

Luke Guerdan, Hanna Wallach, Solon Barocas et al.

Large language model (LLM) evaluations often assume there is a single correct response -- a gold label -- for each item in the evaluation corpus. However, some tasks can be ambiguous -- i.e., they provide insufficient information to identify a unique interpretation -- or vague -- i.e., they do not clearly indicate where to draw the line when making a determination. Both ambiguity and vagueness can cause task indeterminacy -- the condition where some items in the evaluation corpus have more than one correct response. In this paper, we develop a framework for evaluating LLMs under task indeterminacy. Our framework disentangles the relationships between task specification, human ratings, and LLM responses in the LLM evaluation pipeline. Using our framework, we conduct a synthetic experiment showing that evaluations that use the "gold label" assumption underestimate the true performance. We also provide a method for estimating an error-adjusted performance interval given partial knowledge about indeterminate items in the evaluation corpus. We conclude by outlining implications of our work for the research community.

Lydia T. Liu, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Angela Zhou et al.

Many automated decision systems (ADS) are designed to solve prediction problems -- where the goal is to learn patterns from a sample of the population and apply them to individuals from the same population. In reality, these prediction systems operationalize holistic policy interventions in deployment. Once deployed, ADS can shape impacted population outcomes through an effective policy change in how decision-makers operate, while also being defined by past and present interactions between stakeholders and the limitations of existing organizational, as well as societal, infrastructure and context. In this work, we consider the ways in which we must shift from a prediction-focused paradigm to an interventionist paradigm when considering the impact of ADS within social systems. We argue this requires a new default problem setup for ADS beyond prediction, to instead consider predictions as decision support, final decisions, and outcomes. We highlight how this perspective unifies modern statistical frameworks and other tools to study the design, implementation, and evaluation of ADS systems, and point to the research directions necessary to operationalize this paradigm shift. Using these tools, we characterize the limitations of focusing on isolated prediction tasks, and lay the foundation for a more intervention-oriented approach to developing and deploying ADS.

Luke Guerdan, Devansh Saxena, Stevie Chancellor et al.

Data scientists often formulate predictive modeling tasks involving fuzzy, hard-to-define concepts, such as the "authenticity" of student writing or the "healthcare need" of a patient. Yet the process by which data scientists translate fuzzy concepts into a concrete, proxy target variable remains poorly understood. We interview fifteen data scientists in education (N=8) and healthcare (N=7) to understand how they construct target variables for predictive modeling tasks. Our findings suggest that data scientists construct target variables through a bricolage process, in which they use creative and pragmatic approaches to make do with the limited data at hand. Data scientists attempt to satisfy five major criteria for a target variable through bricolage: validity, simplicity, predictability, portability, and resource requirements. To achieve this, data scientists adaptively apply problem (re)formulation strategies, such as swapping out one candidate target variable for another when the first fails to meet certain criteria (e.g., predictability), or composing multiple outcomes into a single target variable to capture a more holistic set of modeling objectives. Based on our findings, we present opportunities for future HCI, CSCW, and ML research to better support the art and science of target variable construction.

Luke Guerdan, Justin Whitehouse, Kimberly Truong et al.

As Generative AI (GenAI) systems see growing adoption, a key concern involves the external validity of evaluations, or the extent to which they generalize from lab-based to real-world deployment conditions. Threats to the external validity of GenAI evaluations arise when the source sample of human raters and system outputs used to obtain a system quality estimate differs from the target distribution at deployment time. In this work, we propose a doubly-robust estimation framework designed to address this evaluation sampling bias. Key to our approach is the use of "persona" ratings produced by prompting an LLM evaluator (i.e., an LLM-as-a-judge) to behave as a human rater with specific sociodemographic characteristics. Our doubly-robust framework combines these informative yet imperfect persona ratings with human ratings obtained under evaluation sampling bias to produce statistically valid system quality estimates. In particular, we show that our approach yields valid system quality estimates when either (i) a model trained to predict human ratings using persona ratings and source data observed under sampling bias, or (ii) a reweighting model that corrects for sampling bias is of sufficient quality. We validate our framework theoretically and via a novel Persona Simulation Framework (PSF) designed to systematically manipulate persona quality and the degree of evaluation sampling bias present in source data. Our work provides a principled foundation for combining imperfect persona ratings with human ratings observed under sampling bias to obtain valid system quality estimates.

Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Kenneth Holstein et al.

Predictive models are often introduced to decision-making tasks under the rationale that they improve performance over an existing decision-making policy. However, it is challenging to compare predictive performance against an existing decision-making policy that is generally under-specified and dependent on unobservable factors. These sources of uncertainty are often addressed in practice by making strong assumptions about the data-generating mechanism. In this work, we propose a method to compare the predictive performance of decision policies under a variety of modern identification approaches from the causal inference and off-policy evaluation literatures (e.g., instrumental variable, marginal sensitivity model, proximal variable). Key to our method is the insight that there are regions of uncertainty that we can safely ignore in the policy comparison. We develop a practical approach for finite-sample estimation of regret intervals under no assumptions on the parametric form of the status quo policy. We verify our framework theoretically and via synthetic data experiments. We conclude with a real-world application using our framework to support a pre-deployment evaluation of a proposed modification to a healthcare enrollment policy.

Luke Guerdan, Hatice Gunes

From learning assistance to companionship, social robots promise to enhance many aspects of daily life. However, social robots have not seen widespread adoption, in part because (1) they do not adapt their behavior to new users, and (2) they do not provide sufficient privacy protections. Centralized learning, whereby robots develop skills by gathering data on a server, contributes to these limitations by preventing online learning of new experiences and requiring storage of privacy-sensitive data. In this work, we propose a decentralized learning alternative that improves the privacy and personalization of social robots. We combine two machine learning approaches, Federated Learning and Continual Learning, to capture interaction dynamics distributed physically across robots and temporally across repeated robot encounters. We define a set of criteria that should be balanced in decentralized robot learning scenarios. We also develop a new algorithm -- Elastic Transfer -- that leverages importance-based regularization to preserve relevant parameters across robots and interactions with multiple humans. We show that decentralized learning is a viable alternative to centralized learning in a proof-of-concept Socially-Aware Navigation domain, and demonstrate how Elastic Transfer improves several of the proposed criteria.

Luke Guerdan, Alex Raymond, Hatice Gunes

As machine learning approaches are increasingly used to augment human decision-making, eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) research has explored methods for communicating system behavior to humans. However, these approaches often fail to account for the emotional responses of humans as they interact with explanations. Facial affect analysis, which examines human facial expressions of emotions, is one promising lens for understanding how users engage with explanations. Therefore, in this work, we aim to (1) identify which facial affect features are pronounced when people interact with XAI interfaces, and (2) develop a multitask feature embedding for linking facial affect signals with participants' use of explanations. Our analyses and results show that the occurrence and values of facial AU1 and AU4, and Arousal are heightened when participants fail to use explanations effectively. This suggests that facial affect analysis should be incorporated into XAI to personalize explanations to individuals' interaction styles and to adapt explanations based on the difficulty of the task performed.