We propose Confusions over Time (CoT), a novel generative framework which facilitates a multi-granular analysis of the decision making process. The CoT not only models the confusions or error properties of individual decision makers and their evolution over time, but also allows us to obtain diagnostic insights into the collective decision making process in an interpretable manner.

We propose Confusions over Time (CoT), a novel generative framework which facilitates a multi-granular analysis of the decision making process. The CoT not only models the confusions or error properties of individual decision makers and their evolution over time, but also allows us to obtain diagnostic insights into the collective decision making process in an interpretable manner.

We propose Confusions over Time (CoT), a novel generative framework which facilitates a multi-granular analysis of the decision making process. The CoT not only models the confusions or error properties of individual decision makers and their evolution over time, but also allows us to obtain diagnostic insights into the collective decision making process in an interpretable manner. To this end, the CoT models the confusions of the decision makers and their evolution over time via time-dependent confusion matrices. Interpretable insights are obtained by grouping similar decision makers (and items being judged) into clusters and representing each such cluster with an appropriate prototype and identifying the most important features characterizing the cluster via a subspace feature indicator vector. Experimentation with real world data on bail decisions, asthma treatments, and insurance policy approval decisions demonstrates that CoT can accurately model and explain the confusions of decision makers and their evolution over time.

Many Artificial Intelligence tasks cannot be evaluated with a single quality criterion and some sort of weighted combination is needed to provide system rankings. A problem of weighted combination measures is that slight changes in the relative weights may produce substantial changes in the system rankings. This paper introduces the Unanimous Improvement Ratio (UIR), a measure that complements standard metric combination criteria (such as van Rijsbergens F-measure) and indicates how robust the measured differences are to changes in the relative weights of the individual metrics. UIR is meant to elucidate whether a perceived difference between two systems is an artifact of how individual metrics are weighted. Besides discussing the theoretical foundations of UIR, this paper presents empirical results that confirm the validity and usefulness of the metric for the Text Clustering problem, where there is a tradeoff between precision and recall based metrics and results are particularly sensitive to the weighting scheme used to combine them. Remarkably, our experiments show that UIR can be used as a predictor of how well differences between systems measured on a given test bed will also hold in a different test bed.