Even though machine learning (ML) pipelines affect an increasing array of stakeholders, there is little work on how input from stakeholders is recorded and incorporated. We propose FeedbackLogs, addenda to existing documentation of ML pipelines, to track the input of multiple stakeholders. Each log records important details about the feedback collection process, the feedback itself, and how the feedback is used to update the ML pipeline. In this paper, we introduce and formalise a process for collecting a FeedbackLog. We also provide concrete use cases where FeedbackLogs can be employed as evidence for algorithmic auditing and as a tool to record updates based on stakeholder feedback.

Supervised learning typically focuses on learning transferable representations from training examples annotated by humans. While rich annotations (like soft labels) carry more information than sparse annotations (like hard labels), they are also more expensive to collect. For example, while hard labels only provide information about the closest class an object belongs to (e.g., "this is a dog"), soft labels provide information about the object's relationship with multiple classes (e.g., "this is most likely a dog, but it could also be a wolf or a coyote"). We use information theory to compare how a number of commonly-used supervision signals contribute to representation-learning performance, as well as how their capacity is affected by factors such as the number of labels, classes, dimensions, and noise. Our framework provides theoretical justification for using hard labels in the big-data regime, but richer supervision signals for few-shot learning and out-of-distribution generalization. We validate these results empirically in a series of experiments with over 1 million crowdsourced image annotations and conduct a cost-benefit analysis to establish a tradeoff curve that enables users to optimize the cost of supervising representation learning on their own datasets.

Concept-based models perform prediction using a set of concepts that are interpretable to stakeholders. However, such models often involve a fixed, large number of concepts, which may place a substantial cognitive load on stakeholders. We propose Selective COncept Models (SCOMs) which make predictions using only a subset of concepts and can be customised by stakeholders at test-time according to their preferences. We show that SCOMs only require a fraction of the total concepts to achieve optimal accuracy on multiple real-world datasets. Further, we collect and release a new dataset, CUB-Sel, consisting of human concept set selections for 900 bird images from the popular CUB dataset. Using CUB-Sel, we show that humans have unique individual preferences for the choice of concepts they prefer to reason about, and struggle to identify the most theoretically informative concepts. The customisation and concept selection provided by SCOM improves the efficiency of interpretation and intervention for stakeholders.

Individual human decision-makers may benefit from different forms of support to improve decision outcomes. However, a key question is which form of support will lead to accurate decisions at a low cost. In this work, we propose learning a decision support policy that, for a given input, chooses which form of support, if any, to provide. We consider decision-makers for whom we have no prior information and formalize learning their respective policies as a multi-objective optimization problem that trades off accuracy and cost. Using techniques from stochastic contextual bandits, we propose $\texttt{THREAD}$, an online algorithm to personalize a decision support policy for each decision-maker, and devise a hyper-parameter tuning strategy to identify a cost-performance trade-off using simulated human behavior. We provide computational experiments to demonstrate the benefits of $\texttt{THREAD}$ compared to offline baselines. We then introduce $\texttt{Modiste}$, an interactive tool that provides $\texttt{THREAD}$ with an interface. We conduct human subject experiments to show how $\texttt{Modiste}$ learns policies personalized to each decision-maker and discuss the nuances of learning decision support policies online for real users.

We consider the problem of iterative machine teaching, where a teacher sequentially provides examples based on the status of a learner under a discrete input space (i.e., a pool of finite samples), which greatly limits the teacher's capability. To address this issue, we study iterative teaching under a continuous input space where the input example (i.e., image) can be either generated by solving an optimization problem or drawn directly from a continuous distribution. Specifically, we propose data hallucination teaching (DHT) where the teacher can generate input data intelligently based on labels, the learner's status and the target concept. We study a number of challenging teaching setups (e.g., linear/neural learners in omniscient and black-box settings). Extensive empirical results verify the effectiveness of DHT.

Placing a human in the loop may abate the risks of deploying AI systems in safety-critical settings (e.g., a clinician working with a medical AI system). However, mitigating risks arising from human error and uncertainty within such human-AI interactions is an important and understudied issue. In this work, we study human uncertainty in the context of concept-based models, a family of AI systems that enable human feedback via concept interventions where an expert intervenes on human-interpretable concepts relevant to the task. Prior work in this space often assumes that humans are oracles who are always certain and correct. Yet, real-world decision-making by humans is prone to occasional mistakes and uncertainty. We study how existing concept-based models deal with uncertain interventions from humans using two novel datasets: UMNIST, a visual dataset with controlled simulated uncertainty based on the MNIST dataset, and CUB-S, a relabeling of the popular CUB concept dataset with rich, densely-annotated soft labels from humans. We show that training with uncertain concept labels may help mitigate weaknesses of concept-based systems when handling uncertain interventions. These results allow us to identify several open challenges, which we argue can be tackled through future multidisciplinary research on building interactive uncertainty-aware systems. To facilitate further research, we release a new elicitation platform, UElic, to collect uncertain feedback from humans in collaborative prediction tasks.

Conformal prediction (CP) is a wrapper around traditional machine learning models, giving coverage guarantees under the sole assumption of exchangeability; in classification problems, for a chosen significance level $\varepsilon$, CP guarantees that the error rate is at most $\varepsilon$, irrespective of whether the underlying model is misspecified. However, the prohibitive computational costs of "full" CP led researchers to design scalable alternatives, which alas do not attain the same guarantees or statistical power of full CP. In this paper, we use influence functions to efficiently approximate full CP. We prove that our method is a consistent approximation of full CP, and empirically show that the approximation error becomes smaller as the training set increases; e.g., for $10^{3}$ training points the two methods output p-values that are $<10^{-3}$ apart: a negligible error for any practical application. Our methods enable scaling full CP to large real-world datasets. We compare our full CP approximation (ACP) to mainstream CP alternatives, and observe that our method is computationally competitive whilst enjoying the statistical predictive power of full CP.

Recent work on interpretability has focused on concept-based explanations, where deep learning models are explained in terms of high-level units of information, referred to as concepts. Concept learning models, however, have been shown to be prone to encoding impurities in their representations, failing to fully capture meaningful features of their inputs. While concept learning lacks metrics to measure such phenomena, the field of disentanglement learning has explored the related notion of underlying factors of variation in the data, with plenty of metrics to measure the purity of such factors. In this paper, we show that such metrics are not appropriate for concept learning and propose novel metrics for evaluating the purity of concept representations in both approaches. We show the advantage of these metrics over existing ones and demonstrate their utility in evaluating the robustness of concept representations and interventions performed on them. In addition, we show their utility for benchmarking state-of-the-art methods from both families and find that, contrary to common assumptions, supervision alone may not be sufficient for pure concept representations.

Machine learning (ML) practitioners are increasingly tasked with developing models that are aligned with non-technical experts' values and goals. However, there has been insufficient consideration on how practitioners should translate domain expertise into ML updates. In this paper, we consider how to capture interactions between practitioners and experts systematically. We devise a taxonomy to match expert feedback types with practitioner updates. A practitioner may receive feedback from an expert at the observation- or domain-level, and convert this feedback into updates to the dataset, loss function, or parameter space. We review existing work from ML and human-computer interaction to describe this feedback-update taxonomy, and highlight the insufficient consideration given to incorporating feedback from non-technical experts. We end with a set of open questions that naturally arise from our proposed taxonomy and subsequent survey.

To interpret uncertainty estimates from differentiable probabilistic models, recent work has proposed generating a single Counterfactual Latent Uncertainty Explanation (CLUE) for a given data point where the model is uncertain, identifying a single, on-manifold change to the input such that the model becomes more certain in its prediction. We broaden the exploration to examine $\delta$-CLUE, the set of potential CLUEs within a $\delta$ ball of the original input in latent space. We study the diversity of such sets and find that many CLUEs are redundant; as such, we propose DIVerse CLUE ($\nabla$-CLUE), a set of CLUEs which each propose a distinct explanation as to how one can decrease the uncertainty associated with an input. We then further propose GLobal AMortised CLUE (GLAM-CLUE), a distinct and novel method which learns amortised mappings on specific groups of uncertain inputs, taking them and efficiently transforming them in a single function call into inputs for which a model will be certain. Our experiments show that $\delta$-CLUE, $\nabla$-CLUE, and GLAM-CLUE all address shortcomings of CLUE and provide beneficial explanations of uncertainty estimates to practitioners.