Temporal predictive models have the potential to improve decisions in health care, public services, and other domains, yet they often fail to effectively support decision-makers. Prior literature shows that many misalignments between model behavior and decision-makers' expectations stem from issues of model specification, namely how, when, and for whom predictions are made. However, model specifications for predictive tasks are highly technical and difficult for non-data-scientist stakeholders to interpret and critique. To address this challenge we developed Tempo, an interactive system that helps data scientists and domain experts collaboratively iterate on model specifications. Using Tempo's simple yet precise temporal query language, data scientists can quickly prototype specifications with greater transparency about pre-processing choices. Moreover, domain experts can assess performance within data subgroups to validate that models behave as expected. Through three case studies, we demonstrate how Tempo helps multidisciplinary teams quickly prune infeasible specifications and identify more promising directions to explore.

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a promising approach to generate treatment policies for sepsis patients in intensive care. While retrospective evaluation metrics show decreased mortality when these policies are followed, studies with clinicians suggest their recommendations are often spurious. We propose that these shortcomings may be due to lack of diversity in observed actions and outcomes in the training data, and we construct experiments to investigate the feasibility of predicting sepsis disease severity changes due to clinician actions. Preliminary results suggest incorporating action information does not significantly improve model performance, indicating that clinician actions may not be sufficiently variable to yield measurable effects on disease progression. We discuss the implications of these findings for optimizing sepsis treatment.

Explainability techniques are rapidly being developed to improve human-AI decision-making across various cooperative work settings. Consequently, previous research has evaluated how decision-makers collaborate with imperfect AI by investigating appropriate reliance and task performance with the aim of designing more human-centered computer-supported collaborative tools. Several human-centered explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed in hopes of improving decision-makers' collaboration with AI; however, these techniques are grounded in findings from previous studies that primarily focus on the impact of incorrect AI advice. Few studies acknowledge the possibility for the explanations to be incorrect even if the AI advice is correct. Thus, it is crucial to understand how imperfect XAI affects human-AI decision-making. In this work, we contribute a robust, mixed-methods user study with 136 participants to evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task taking into account their level of expertise and an explanation's level of assertiveness. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance. We also discuss how explanations can deceive decision-makers during human-AI collaboration. Hence, we shed light on the impacts of imperfect XAI in the field of computer-supported cooperative work and provide guidelines for designers of human-AI collaboration systems.

To effectively work with AI aids, people need to know when to either accept or override an AI's output. People decide when to rely on an AI by using their mental models [3, 30], or internal representations, of how the AI tends to behave: when it is most accurate, when it is most likely to fail, etc. A detailed and accurate mental model allows a person to effectively complement an AI system by appropriately relying [37] on its output, while an overly simple or wrong mental model can lead to blind spots and systematic failures [3, 8]. At worst, people can perform worse than they would have unassisted, such as clinicians who made more errors than average when shown incorrect AI predictions [7, 24]. Mental models are an inherently incomplete representation of any system, but numerous factors make it especially challenging to develop adequate mental models of AI systems. First, modern AI systems are often black-box models for which humans cannot see how or why the model made a prediction [54].

Explainable AI (XAI) is a promising means of supporting human-AI collaborations for high-stakes visual detection tasks, such as damage detection tasks from satellite imageries, as fully-automated approaches are unlikely to be perfectly safe and reliable. However, most existing XAI techniques are not informed by the understandings of task-specific needs of humans for explanations. Thus, we took a first step toward understanding what forms of XAI humans require in damage detection tasks. We conducted an online crowdsourced study to understand how people explain their own assessments, when evaluating the severity of building damage based on satellite imagery. Through the study with 60 crowdworkers, we surfaced six major strategies that humans utilize to explain their visual damage assessments. We present implications of our findings for the design of XAI methods for such visual detection contexts, and discuss opportunities for future research.

Embeddings of words and concepts capture syntactic and semantic regularities of language; however, they have seen limited use as tools to study characteristics of different corpora and how they relate to one another. We introduce TextEssence, an interactive system designed to enable comparative analysis of corpora using embeddings. TextEssence includes visual, neighbor-based, and similarity-based modes of embedding analysis in a lightweight, web-based interface. We further propose a new measure of embedding confidence based on nearest neighborhood overlap, to assist in identifying high-quality embeddings for corpus analysis. A case study on COVID-19 scientific literature illustrates the utility of the system. TextEssence is available from https://github.com/drgriffis/text-essence.

Neural Sequence-to-Sequence models have proven to be accurate and robust for many sequence prediction tasks, and have become the standard approach for automatic translation of text. The models work in a five stage blackbox process that involves encoding a source sequence to a vector space and then decoding out to a new target sequence. This process is now standard, but like many deep learning methods remains quite difficult to understand or debug. In this work, we present a visual analysis tool that allows interaction with a trained sequence-to-sequence model through each stage of the translation process. The aim is to identify which patterns have been learned and to detect model errors. We demonstrate the utility of our tool through several real-world large-scale sequence-to-sequence use cases.

A Data Scientist typically performs a number of tedious and time-consuming steps to derive insight from a raw data set. The process usually starts with data ingestion, cleaning, and transformation (e.g. outlier removal, missing value imputation), then proceeds to model building, and finally a presentation of predictions that align with the end-users objectives and preferences. It is a long, complex, and sometimes artful process requiring substantial time and effort, especially because of the combinatorial explosion in choices of algorithms (and platforms), their parameters, and their compositions. Tools that can help automate steps in this process have the potential to accelerate the time-to-delivery of useful results, expand the reach of data science to non-experts, and offer a more systematic exploration of the available options. This work presents a step towards this goal.