Teaching Humans When to Defer to a Classifier via Exemplars
Open accessAbstract
Expert decision makers are starting to rely on data-driven automated agents to assist them with various tasks. For this collaboration to perform properly, the human decision maker must have a mental model of when and when not to rely on the agent. In this work, we aim to ensure that human decision makers learn a valid mental model of the agent's strengths and weaknesses. To accomplish this goal, we propose an exemplar-based teaching strategy where humans solve a set of selected examples and with our help generalize from them to the domain. We present a novel parameterization of the human's mental model of the AI that applies a nearest neighbor rule in local regions surrounding the teaching examples. Using this model, we derive a near-optimal strategy for selecting a representative teaching set. We validate the benefits of our teaching strategy on a multi-hop question answering task with an interpretable AI model using crowd workers. We find that when workers draw the right lessons from the teaching stage, their task performance improves. We furthermore validate our method on a set of synthetic experiments.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Requiring the programmer to ask for suggestions may lead to sub-optimal interactions because its success would rely on programmers having an accurate mental model of Copilot abilities, which can require long-term interactions with the model or training.
“Requiring the programmer to ask may lead to sub-optimal interactions because its success would rely on programmers having an accurate mental model of Copilot abilities (Sarkar et al. 2022) which can require long-term interactions with the model (Bansal et al. 2019) or training (Mozannar, Satyanarayan, and Sontag 2022).”
From When to Show a Suggestion? Integrating Human Feedback in AI-Assisted Programming (2024) · cites this paper as Mozannar, Satyanarayan, and Sontag 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 5
- Authors
- Mozannar, H., Satyanarayan, A., & Sontag, D.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2022-06-28
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 5323-5331
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 2374-3468
- OpenAlex
- W4226161957
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1723344)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Keywords
- human-AI collaboration, nearest neighbor rule, multi-hop question answering, explainable AI, crowd workers, trust in AI
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review