A Unifying Framework for Combining Complementary Strengths of Humans and ML toward Better Predictive Decision-Making

Hybrid human-ML systems are increasingly in charge of consequential decisions in a wide range of domains. A growing body of empirical and theoretical work has advanced our understanding of these systems. However, existing empirical results are mixed, and theoretical proposals are often mutually incompatible. In this work, we propose a unifying framework for understanding conditions under which combining the complementary strengths of humans and ML leads to higher quality decisions than those produced by each of them individually -- a state which we refer to as human-ML complementarity. We focus specifically on the context of human-ML predictive decision-making and investigate optimal ways of combining human and ML predictive decisions, accounting for the underlying sources of variation in their judgments. Within this scope, we present two crucial contributions. First, taking a computational perspective of decision-making and drawing upon prior literature in psychology, machine learning, and human-computer interaction, we introduce a taxonomy characterizing a wide range of criteria across which human and machine decision-making differ. Second, formalizing our taxonomy allows us to study how human and ML predictive decisions should be aggregated optimally. We show that our proposed framework encompasses several existing models of human-ML complementarity as special cases. Last but not least, an initial exploratory analysis of our framework presents a critical insight for future work in human-ML complementarity: the mechanism by which we combine human and ML judgments should be informed by the underlying causes of divergence in their decisions.Comment: 21 pages, 1 figur

Supporting Human-AI Collaboration in Auditing LLMs with LLMs

Large language models are becoming increasingly pervasive and ubiquitous in society via deployment in sociotechnical systems. Yet these language models, be it for classification or generation, have been shown to be biased and behave irresponsibly, causing harm to people at scale. It is crucial to audit these language models rigorously. Existing auditing tools leverage either or both humans and AI to find failures. In this work, we draw upon literature in human-AI collaboration and sensemaking, and conduct interviews with research experts in safe and fair AI, to build upon the auditing tool: AdaTest (Ribeiro and Lundberg, 2022), which is powered by a generative large language model (LLM). Through the design process we highlight the importance of sensemaking and human-AI communication to leverage complementary strengths of humans and generative models in collaborative auditing. To evaluate the effectiveness of the augmented tool, AdaTest++, we conduct user studies with participants auditing two commercial language models: OpenAI's GPT-3 and Azure's sentiment analysis model. Qualitative analysis shows that AdaTest++ effectively leverages human strengths such as schematization, hypothesis formation and testing. Further, with our tool, participants identified a variety of failures modes, covering 26 different topics over 2 tasks, that have been shown before in formal audits and also those previously under-reported.Comment: 21 pages, 3 figure

Cite-seeing and Reviewing: A Study on Citation Bias in Peer Review

Citations play an important role in researchers' careers as a key factor in evaluation of scientific impact. Many anecdotes advice authors to exploit this fact and cite prospective reviewers to try obtaining a more positive evaluation for their submission. In this work, we investigate if such a citation bias actually exists: Does the citation of a reviewer's own work in a submission cause them to be positively biased towards the submission? In conjunction with the review process of two flagship conferences in machine learning and algorithmic economics, we execute an observational study to test for citation bias in peer review. In our analysis, we carefully account for various confounding factors such as paper quality and reviewer expertise, and apply different modeling techniques to alleviate concerns regarding the model mismatch. Overall, our analysis involves 1,314 papers and 1,717 reviewers and detects citation bias in both venues we consider. In terms of the effect size, by citing a reviewer's work, a submission has a non-trivial chance of getting a higher score from the reviewer: an expected increase in the score is approximately 0.23 on a 5-point Likert item. For reference, a one-point increase of a score by a single reviewer improves the position of a submission by 11% on average.Comment: 19 pages, 3 figure

To ArXiv or not to ArXiv: A Study Quantifying Pros and Cons of Posting Preprints Online

Double-blind conferences have engaged in debates over whether to allow authors to post their papers online on arXiv or elsewhere during the review process. Independently, some authors of research papers face the dilemma of whether to put their papers on arXiv due to its pros and cons. We conduct a study to substantiate this debate and dilemma via quantitative measurements. Specifically, we conducted surveys of reviewers in two top-tier double-blind computer science conferences -- ICML 2021 (5361 submissions and 4699 reviewers) and EC 2021 (498 submissions and 190 reviewers). Our two main findings are as follows. First, more than a third of the reviewers self-report searching online for a paper they are assigned to review. Second, outside the review process, we find that preprints from better-ranked affiliations see a weakly higher visibility, with a correlation of 0.06 in ICML and 0.05 in EC. In particular, papers associated with the top-10-ranked affiliations had a visibility of approximately 11% in ICML and 22% in EC, whereas the remaining papers had a visibility of 7% and 18% respectively.Comment: 17 pages, 3 figure

DataPerf: Benchmarks for Data-Centric AI Development

Machine learning research has long focused on models rather than datasets, and prominent datasets are used for common ML tasks without regard to the breadth, difficulty, and faithfulness of the underlying problems. Neglecting the fundamental importance of data has given rise to inaccuracy, bias, and fragility in real-world applications, and research is hindered by saturation across existing dataset benchmarks. In response, we present DataPerf, a community-led benchmark suite for evaluating ML datasets and data-centric algorithms. We aim to foster innovation in data-centric AI through competition, comparability, and reproducibility. We enable the ML community to iterate on datasets, instead of just architectures, and we provide an open, online platform with multiple rounds of challenges to support this iterative development. The first iteration of DataPerf contains five benchmarks covering a wide spectrum of data-centric techniques, tasks, and modalities in vision, speech, acquisition, debugging, and diffusion prompting, and we support hosting new contributed benchmarks from the community. The benchmarks, online evaluation platform, and baseline implementations are open source, and the MLCommons Association will maintain DataPerf to ensure long-term benefits to academia and industry.Comment: NeurIPS 2023 Datasets and Benchmarks Trac

A Taxonomy of Human and ML Strengths in Decision-Making to Investigate Human-ML Complementarity

Hybrid human-ML systems increasingly make consequential decisions in a wide range of domains. These systems are often introduced with the expectation that the combined human-ML system will achieve complementary performance, that is, the combined decision-making system will be an improvement compared with either decision-making agent in isolation. However, empirical results have been mixed, and existing research rarely articulates the sources and mechanisms by which complementary performance is expected to arise. Our goal in this work is to provide conceptual tools to advance the way researchers reason and communicate about human-ML complementarity. Drawing upon prior literature in human psychology, machine learning, and human-computer interaction, we propose a taxonomy characterizing distinct ways in which human and ML-based decision-making can differ. In doing so, we conceptually map potential mechanisms by which combining human and ML decision-making may yield complementary performance, developing a language for the research community to reason about design of hybrid systems in any decision-making domain. To illustrate how our taxonomy can be used to investigate complementarity, we provide a mathematical aggregation framework to examine enabling conditions for complementarity. Through synthetic simulations, we demonstrate how this framework can be used to explore specific aspects of our taxonomy and shed light on the optimal mechanisms for combining human-ML judgments