Increasingly, organizations are pairing humans with AI systems to improve decision-making and reducing costs. Proponents of human-centered AI argue that team performance can even further improve when the AI model explains its recommendations. However, a careful analysis of existing literature reveals that prior studies observed improvements due to explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best human-AI team. This raises an important question: can explanations lead to complementary performance, i.e., with accuracy higher than both the human and the AI working alone? We address this question by devising comprehensive studies on human-AI teaming, where participants solve a task with help from an AI system without explanations and from one with varying types of AI explanation support. We carefully controlled to ensure comparable human and AI accuracy across experiments on three NLP datasets (two for sentiment analysis and one for question answering). While we found complementary improvements from AI augmentation, they were not increased by state-of-the-art explanations compared to simpler strategies, such as displaying the AI's confidence. We show that explanations increase the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation regardless of whether the AI is correct. While this clarifies the gains in team performance from explanations in prior work, it poses new challenges for human-centered AI: how can we best design systems to produce complementary performance? Can we develop explanatory approaches that help humans decide whether and when to trust AI input?

In many high-stakes domains such as criminal justice, finance, and healthcare, AI systems may recommend actions to a human expert responsible for final decisions, a context known as AI-advised decision making. When AI practitioners deploy the most accurate system in these domains, they implicitly assume that the system will function alone in the world. We argue that the most accurate AI team-mate is not necessarily the em best teammate; for example, predictable performance is worth a slight sacrifice in AI accuracy. So, we propose training AI systems in a human-centered manner and directly optimizing for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI team, where the human overseer chooses to accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. To optimize the team performance we maximize the team's expected utility, expressed in terms of quality of the final decision, cost of verifying, and individual accuracies. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the improvements in utility while being small and varying across datasets and parameters (such as cost of mistake), are real and consistent with our definition of team utility. We discuss the shortcoming of current optimization approaches beyond well-studied loss functions such as log-loss, and encourage future work on human-centered optimization problems motivated by human-AI collaborations.

AI systems are being deployed to support human decision making in high-stakes domains. In many cases, the human and AI form a team, in which the human makes decisions after reviewing the AI's inferences. A successful partnership requires that the human develops insights into the performance of the AI system, including its failures. We study the influence of updates to an AI system in this setting. While updates can increase the AI's predictive performance, they may also lead to changes that are at odds with the user's prior experiences and confidence in the AI's inferences, hurting therefore the overall team performance. We introduce the notion of the compatibility of an AI update with prior user experience and present methods for studying the role of compatibility in human-AI teams. Empirical results on three high-stakes domains show that current machine learning algorithms do not produce compatible updates. We propose a re-training objective to improve the compatibility of an update by penalizing new errors. The objective offers full leverage of the performance/compatibility tradeoff, enabling more compatible yet accurate updates.

Since Artificial Intelligence (AI) software uses techniques like deep lookahead search and stochastic optimization of huge neural networks to fit mammoth datasets, it often results in complex behavior that is difficult for people to understand. Yet organizations are deploying AI algorithms in many mission-critical settings. To trust their behavior, we must make AI intelligible, either by using inherently interpretable models or by developing new methods for explaining and controlling otherwise overwhelmingly complex decisions using local approximation, vocabulary alignment, and interactive explanation. This paper argues that intelligibility is essential, surveys recent work on building such systems, and highlights key directions for research.

A classifier’s low confidence in prediction is often indicative of whether its prediction will be wrong; in this case, inputs are called known unknowns. In contrast, unknown unknowns (UUs) are inputs on which a classifier makes a high confidence mistake. Identifying UUs is especially important in safety-critical domains like medicine (diagnosis) and law (recidivism prediction). Previous work by Lakkaraju et al. (2017) on identifying unknown unknowns assumes that the utility of each revealed UU is independent of the others, rather than considering the set holistically. While this assumption yields an efficient discovery algorithm, we argue that it produces an incomplete understanding of the classifier’s limitations. In response, this paper proposes a new class of utility models that rewards how well the discovered UUs cover (or "explain") a sample distribution of expected queries. Although choosing an optimal cover is intractable, even if the UUs were known, our utility model is monotone submodular, affording a greedy discovery strategy. Experimental results on four datasets show that our method outperforms bandit-based approaches and achieves within 60.9% utility of an omniscient, tractable upper bound.

Revenue forecasting is required by most enterprises for strategic business planning and for providing expected future results to investors. However, revenue forecasting processes in most companies are time-consuming and error-prone as they are performed manually by hundreds of financial analysts. In this paper, we present a novel machine learning based revenue forecasting solution that we developed to forecast 100% of Microsoft's revenue (around $85 Billion in 2016), and is now deployed into production as an end-to-end automated and secure pipeline in Azure. Our solution combines historical trend and seasonal patterns with additional information, e.g., sales pipeline data, within a unified modeling framework. In this paper, we describe our framework including the features, method for hyperparameters tuning of ML models using time series cross-validation, and generation of prediction intervals. We also describe how we architected an end-to-end secure and automated revenue forecasting solution on Azure using Cortana Intelligence Suite. Over consecutive quarters, our machine learning models have continuously produced forecasts with an average accuracy of 98-99 percent for various divisions within Microsoft's Finance organization. As a result, our models have been widely adopted by them and are now an integral part of Microsoft's most important forecasting processes, from providing Wall Street guidance to managing global sales performance.