skip to main content


Title: Deliberating with AI: Improving Decision-Making for the Future through Participatory AI Design and Stakeholder Deliberation
Research exploring how to support decision-making has often used machine learning to automate or assist human decisions. We take an alternative approach for improving decision-making, using machine learning to help stakeholders surface ways to improve and make fairer decision-making processes. We created "Deliberating with AI", a web tool that enables people to create and evaluate ML models in order to examine strengths and shortcomings of past decision-making and deliberate on how to improve future decisions. We apply this tool to a context of people selection, having stakeholders---decision makers (faculty) and decision subjects (students)---use the tool to improve graduate school admission decisions. Through our case study, we demonstrate how the stakeholders used the web tool to create ML models that they used as boundary objects to deliberate over organization decision-making practices. We share insights from our study to inform future research on stakeholder-centered participatory AI design and technology for organizational decision-making.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2125858 2125692
NSF-PAR ID:
10463942
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Volume:
7
Issue:
CSCW1
ISSN:
2573-0142
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1 to 32
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) enhanced systems are widely adopted in post-secondary education, however, tools and activities have only recently become accessible for teaching AI and machine learning (ML) concepts to K-12 students. Research on K-12 AI education has largely included student attitudes toward AI careers, AI ethics, and student use of various existing AI agents such as voice assistants; most of which has focused on high school and middle school. There is no consensus on which AI and Machine Learning concepts are grade-appropriate for elementary-aged students or how elementary students explore and make sense of AI and ML tools. AI is a rapidly evolving technology and as future decision-makers, children will need to be AI literate[1]. In this paper, we will present elementary students’ sense-making of simple machine-learning concepts. Through this project, we hope to generate a new model for introducing AI concepts to elementary students into school curricula and provide tangible, trainable representations of ML for students to explore in the physical world. In our first year, our focus has been on simpler machine learning algorithms. Our desire is to empower students to not only use AI tools but also to understand how they operate. We believe that appropriate activities can help late elementary-aged students develop foundational AI knowledge namely (1) how a robot senses the world, and (2) how a robot represents data for making decisions. Educational robotics programs have been repeatedly shown to result in positive learning impacts and increased interest[2]. In this pilot study, we leveraged the LEGO® Education SPIKE™ Prime for introducing ML concepts to upper elementary students. Through pilot testing in three one-week summer programs, we iteratively developed a limited display interface for supervised learning using the nearest neighbor algorithm. We collected videos to perform a qualitative evaluation. Based on analyzing student behavior and the process of students trained in robotics, we found some students show interest in exploring pre-trained ML models and training new models while building personally relevant robotic creations and developing solutions to engineering tasks. While students were interested in using the ML tools for complex tasks, they seemed to prefer to use block programming or manual motor controls where they felt it was practical. 
    more » « less
  2. Pham, Tien ; Solomon, Latasha ; Hohil, Myron E. (Ed.)
    Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is the capability of explaining the reasoning behind the choices made by the machine learning (ML) algorithm which can help understand and maintain the transparency of the decision-making capability of the ML algorithm. Humans make thousands of decisions every day in their lives. Every decision an individual makes, they can explain the reasons behind why they made the choices that they made. Nonetheless, it is not the same in the case of ML and AI systems. Furthermore, XAI was not wideley researched until suddenly the topic was brought forward and has been one of the most relevant topics in AI for trustworthy and transparent outcomes. XAI tries to provide maximum transparency to a ML algorithm by answering questions about how models effectively came up with the output. ML models with XAI will have the ability to explain the rationale behind the results, understand the weaknesses and strengths the learning models, and be able to see how the models will behave in the future. In this paper, we investigate XAI for algorithmic trustworthiness and transparency. We evaluate XAI using some example use cases and by using SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) library and visualizing the effect of features individually and cumulatively in the prediction process. 
    more » « less
  3. null (Ed.)
    The DeepLearningEpilepsyDetectionChallenge: design, implementation, andtestofanewcrowd-sourced AIchallengeecosystem Isabell Kiral*, Subhrajit Roy*, Todd Mummert*, Alan Braz*, Jason Tsay, Jianbin Tang, Umar Asif, Thomas Schaffter, Eren Mehmet, The IBM Epilepsy Consortium◊ , Joseph Picone, Iyad Obeid, Bruno De Assis Marques, Stefan Maetschke, Rania Khalaf†, Michal Rosen-Zvi† , Gustavo Stolovitzky† , Mahtab Mirmomeni† , Stefan Harrer† * These authors contributed equally to this work † Corresponding authors: rkhalaf@us.ibm.com, rosen@il.ibm.com, gustavo@us.ibm.com, mahtabm@au1.ibm.com, sharrer@au.ibm.com ◊ Members of the IBM Epilepsy Consortium are listed in the Acknowledgements section J. Picone and I. Obeid are with Temple University, USA. T. Schaffter is with Sage Bionetworks, USA. E. Mehmet is with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. All other authors are with IBM Research in USA, Israel and Australia. Introduction This decade has seen an ever-growing number of scientific fields benefitting from the advances in machine learning technology and tooling. More recently, this trend reached the medical domain, with applications reaching from cancer diagnosis [1] to the development of brain-machine-interfaces [2]. While Kaggle has pioneered the crowd-sourcing of machine learning challenges to incentivise data scientists from around the world to advance algorithm and model design, the increasing complexity of problem statements demands of participants to be expert data scientists, deeply knowledgeable in at least one other scientific domain, and competent software engineers with access to large compute resources. People who match this description are few and far between, unfortunately leading to a shrinking pool of possible participants and a loss of experts dedicating their time to solving important problems. Participation is even further restricted in the context of any challenge run on confidential use cases or with sensitive data. Recently, we designed and ran a deep learning challenge to crowd-source the development of an automated labelling system for brain recordings, aiming to advance epilepsy research. A focus of this challenge, run internally in IBM, was the development of a platform that lowers the barrier of entry and therefore mitigates the risk of excluding interested parties from participating. The challenge: enabling wide participation With the goal to run a challenge that mobilises the largest possible pool of participants from IBM (global), we designed a use case around previous work in epileptic seizure prediction [3]. In this “Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge”, participants were asked to develop an automatic labelling system to reduce the time a clinician would need to diagnose patients with epilepsy. Labelled training and blind validation data for the challenge were generously provided by Temple University Hospital (TUH) [4]. TUH also devised a novel scoring metric for the detection of seizures that was used as basis for algorithm evaluation [5]. In order to provide an experience with a low barrier of entry, we designed a generalisable challenge platform under the following principles: 1. No participant should need to have in-depth knowledge of the specific domain. (i.e. no participant should need to be a neuroscientist or epileptologist.) 2. No participant should need to be an expert data scientist. 3. No participant should need more than basic programming knowledge. (i.e. no participant should need to learn how to process fringe data formats and stream data efficiently.) 4. No participant should need to provide their own computing resources. In addition to the above, our platform should further • guide participants through the entire process from sign-up to model submission, • facilitate collaboration, and • provide instant feedback to the participants through data visualisation and intermediate online leaderboards. The platform The architecture of the platform that was designed and developed is shown in Figure 1. The entire system consists of a number of interacting components. (1) A web portal serves as the entry point to challenge participation, providing challenge information, such as timelines and challenge rules, and scientific background. The portal also facilitated the formation of teams and provided participants with an intermediate leaderboard of submitted results and a final leaderboard at the end of the challenge. (2) IBM Watson Studio [6] is the umbrella term for a number of services offered by IBM. Upon creation of a user account through the web portal, an IBM Watson Studio account was automatically created for each participant that allowed users access to IBM's Data Science Experience (DSX), the analytics engine Watson Machine Learning (WML), and IBM's Cloud Object Storage (COS) [7], all of which will be described in more detail in further sections. (3) The user interface and starter kit were hosted on IBM's Data Science Experience platform (DSX) and formed the main component for designing and testing models during the challenge. DSX allows for real-time collaboration on shared notebooks between team members. A starter kit in the form of a Python notebook, supporting the popular deep learning libraries TensorFLow [8] and PyTorch [9], was provided to all teams to guide them through the challenge process. Upon instantiation, the starter kit loaded necessary python libraries and custom functions for the invisible integration with COS and WML. In dedicated spots in the notebook, participants could write custom pre-processing code, machine learning models, and post-processing algorithms. The starter kit provided instant feedback about participants' custom routines through data visualisations. Using the notebook only, teams were able to run the code on WML, making use of a compute cluster of IBM's resources. The starter kit also enabled submission of the final code to a data storage to which only the challenge team had access. (4) Watson Machine Learning provided access to shared compute resources (GPUs). Code was bundled up automatically in the starter kit and deployed to and run on WML. WML in turn had access to shared storage from which it requested recorded data and to which it stored the participant's code and trained models. (5) IBM's Cloud Object Storage held the data for this challenge. Using the starter kit, participants could investigate their results as well as data samples in order to better design custom algorithms. (6) Utility Functions were loaded into the starter kit at instantiation. This set of functions included code to pre-process data into a more common format, to optimise streaming through the use of the NutsFlow and NutsML libraries [10], and to provide seamless access to the all IBM services used. Not captured in the diagram is the final code evaluation, which was conducted in an automated way as soon as code was submitted though the starter kit, minimising the burden on the challenge organising team. Figure 1: High-level architecture of the challenge platform Measuring success The competitive phase of the "Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge" ran for 6 months. Twenty-five teams, with a total number of 87 scientists and software engineers from 14 global locations participated. All participants made use of the starter kit we provided and ran algorithms on IBM's infrastructure WML. Seven teams persisted until the end of the challenge and submitted final solutions. The best performing solutions reached seizure detection performances which allow to reduce hundred-fold the time eliptologists need to annotate continuous EEG recordings. Thus, we expect the developed algorithms to aid in the diagnosis of epilepsy by significantly shortening manual labelling time. Detailed results are currently in preparation for publication. Equally important to solving the scientific challenge, however, was to understand whether we managed to encourage participation from non-expert data scientists. Figure 2: Primary occupation as reported by challenge participants Out of the 40 participants for whom we have occupational information, 23 reported Data Science or AI as their main job description, 11 reported being a Software Engineer, and 2 people had expertise in Neuroscience. Figure 2 shows that participants had a variety of specialisations, including some that are in no way related to data science, software engineering, or neuroscience. No participant had deep knowledge and experience in data science, software engineering and neuroscience. Conclusion Given the growing complexity of data science problems and increasing dataset sizes, in order to solve these problems, it is imperative to enable collaboration between people with differences in expertise with a focus on inclusiveness and having a low barrier of entry. We designed, implemented, and tested a challenge platform to address exactly this. Using our platform, we ran a deep-learning challenge for epileptic seizure detection. 87 IBM employees from several business units including but not limited to IBM Research with a variety of skills, including sales and design, participated in this highly technical challenge. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract Practitioner notes

    What is already known about this topic

    Scholarly attention has turned to examining Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy in K‐12 to help students understand the working mechanism of AI technologies and critically evaluate automated decisions made by computer models.

    While efforts have been made to engage students in understanding AI through building machine learning models with data, few of them go in‐depth into teaching and learning of feature engineering, a critical concept in modelling data.

    There is a need for research to examine students' data modelling processes, particularly in the little‐researched realm of unstructured data.

    What this paper adds

    Results show that students developed nuanced understandings of models learning patterns in data for automated decision making.

    Results demonstrate that students drew on prior experience and knowledge in creating features from unstructured data in the learning task of building text classification models.

    Students needed support in performing feature engineering practices, reasoning about noisy features and exploring features in rich social contexts that the data set is situated in.

    Implications for practice and/or policy

    It is important for schools to provide hands‐on model building experiences for students to understand and evaluate automated decisions from AI technologies.

    Students should be empowered to draw on their cultural and social backgrounds as they create models and evaluate data sources.

    To extend this work, educators should consider opportunities to integrate AI learning in other disciplinary subjects (ie, outside of computer science classes).

     
    more » « less
  5. Explanations can help users of Artificial Intelligent (AI) systems gain a better understanding of the reasoning behind the model’s decision, facilitate their trust in AI, and assist them in making informed decisions. Due to its numerous benefits in improving how users interact and collaborate with AI, this has stirred the AI/ML community towards developing understandable or interpretable models to a larger degree, while design researchers continue to study and research ways to present explanations of these models’ decisions in a coherent form. However, there is still the lack of intentional design effort from the HCI community around these explanation system designs. In this paper, we contribute a framework to support the design and validation of explainable AI systems; one that requires carefully thinking through design decisions at several important decision points. This framework captures key aspects of explanations ranging from target users, to the data, to the AI models in use. We also discuss how we applied our framework to design an explanation interface for trace link prediction of software artifacts. 
    more » « less