Many practical applications, ranging from paper-reviewer assignment in peer review to job-applicant matching for hiring, require human decision makers to identify relevant matches by combining their expertise with predictions from machine learning models. In many such model-assisted document matching tasks, the decision makers have stressed the need for assistive information about the model outputs (or the data) to facilitate their decisions. In this paper, we devise a proxy matching task that allows us to evaluate which kinds of assistive information improve decision makers' performance (in terms of accuracy and time). Through a crowdsourced (N=271 participants) study, we find that providing black-box model explanations reduces users' accuracy on the matching task, contrary to the commonly-held belief that they can be helpful by allowing better understanding of the model. On the other hand, custom methods that are designed to closely attend to some task-specific desiderata are found to be effective in improving user performance. Surprisingly, we also find that the users' perceived utility of assistive information is misaligned with their objective utility (measured through their task performance).

In this paper we provide a comprehensive introduction to knowledge graphs, which have recently garnered significant attention from both industry and academia in scenarios that require exploiting diverse, dynamic, large-scale collections of data. After a general introduction, we motivate and contrast various graph-based data models and query languages that are used for knowledge graphs. We discuss the roles of schema, identity, and context in knowledge graphs. We explain how knowledge can be represented and extracted using a combination of deductive and inductive techniques. We summarise methods for the creation, enrichment, quality assessment, refinement, and publication of knowledge graphs. We provide an overview of prominent open knowledge graphs and enterprise knowledge graphs, their applications, and how they use the aforementioned techniques. We conclude with high-level future research directions for knowledge graphs.