Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local Explanations Impact Annotator Experience

The wide adoption of Machine Learning technologies has created a rapidly growing demand for people who can train ML models. Some advocated the term "machine teacher" to refer to the role of people who inject domain knowledge into ML models. One promising learning paradigm is Active Learning (AL), by which the model intelligently selects instances to query the machine teacher for labels. However, in current AL settings, the human-AI interface remains minimal and opaque. We begin considering AI explanations as a core element of the human-AI interface for teaching machines. When a human student learns, it is a common pattern to present one's own reasoning and solicit feedback from the teacher. When a ML model learns and still makes mistakes, the human teacher should be able to understand the reasoning underlying the mistakes. When the model matures, the machine teacher should be able to recognize its progress in order to trust and feel confident about their teaching outcome. Toward this vision, we propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by introducing techniques from the recently surging field of explainable AI (XAI) into an AL setting. We conducted an empirical study comparing the model learning outcomes, feedback content and experience with XAL, to that of traditional AL and coactive learning (providing the model's prediction without the explanation). Our study shows benefits of AI explanation as interfaces for machine teaching--supporting trust calibration and enabling rich forms of teaching feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect with the model judgment and cognitive workload. Our study also reveals important individual factors that mediate a machine teacher's reception to AI explanations, including task knowledge, AI experience and need for cognition. By reflecting on the results, we suggest future directions and design implications for XAL.Comment: replacing with a draft accepted to CSCW202

Active Learning++: Incorporating Annotator's Rationale using Local Model Explanation

We propose a new active learning (AL) framework, Active Learning++, which can utilize an annotator's labels as well as its rationale. Annotators can provide their rationale for choosing a label by ranking input features based on their importance for a given query. To incorporate this additional input, we modified the disagreement measure for a bagging-based Query by Committee (QBC) sampling strategy. Instead of weighing all committee models equally to select the next instance, we assign higher weight to the committee model with higher agreement with the annotator's ranking. Specifically, we generated a feature importance-based local explanation for each committee model. The similarity score between feature rankings provided by the annotator and the local model explanation is used to assign a weight to each corresponding committee model. This approach is applicable to any kind of ML model using model-agnostic techniques to generate local explanation such as LIME. With a simulation study, we show that our framework significantly outperforms a QBC based vanilla AL framework.Comment: Accepted at Workshop on Data Science with Human in the Loop (DaSH) @ ACM SIGKDD 202

ALEX: Active Learning based Enhancement of a Model's Explainability

An active learning (AL) algorithm seeks to construct an effective classifier with a minimal number of labeled examples in a bootstrapping manner. While standard AL heuristics, such as selecting those points for annotation for which a classification model yields least confident predictions, there has been no empirical investigation to see if these heuristics lead to models that are more interpretable to humans. In the era of data-driven learning, this is an important research direction to pursue. This paper describes our work-in-progress towards developing an AL selection function that in addition to model effectiveness also seeks to improve on the interpretability of a model during the bootstrapping steps. Concretely speaking, our proposed selection function trains an `explainer' model in addition to the classifier model, and favours those instances where a different part of the data is used, on an average, to explain the predicted class. Initial experiments exhibited encouraging trends in showing that such a heuristic can lead to developing more effective and more explainable end-to-end data-driven classifiers.Comment: CIKM 202

Understanding the Effect of Out-of-distribution Examples and Interactive Explanations on Human-AI Decision Making

Although AI holds promise for improving human decision making in societally critical domains, it remains an open question how human-AI teams can reliably outperform AI alone and human alone in challenging prediction tasks (also known as complementary performance). We explore two directions to understand the gaps in achieving complementary performance. First, we argue that the typical experimental setup limits the potential of human-AI teams. To account for lower AI performance out-of-distribution than in-distribution because of distribution shift, we design experiments with different distribution types and investigate human performance for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution examples. Second, we develop novel interfaces to support interactive explanations so that humans can actively engage with AI assistance. Using virtual pilot studies and large-scale randomized experiments across three tasks, we demonstrate a clear difference between in-distribution and out-of-distribution, and observe mixed results for interactive explanations: while interactive explanations improve human perception of AI assistance's usefulness, they may reinforce human biases and lead to limited performance improvement. Overall, our work points out critical challenges and future directions towards enhancing human performance with AI assistance.Comment: 43 pages, 24 figure