Fostering Trust and Quantifying Value of AI and ML

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05919v1
• Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:25:28 GMT
• Title: Fostering Trust and Quantifying Value of AI and ML
• Authors: Dalmo Cirne, Veena Calambur,
• Abstract summary: Much has been discussed about trusting AI and ML inferences, but little has been done to define what that means. producing ever more trustworthy machine learning inferences is a path to increase the value of products.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) providers have a responsibility to develop valid and reliable systems. Much has been discussed about trusting AI and ML inferences (the process of running live data through a trained AI model to make a prediction or solve a task), but little has been done to define what that means. Those in the space of ML- based products are familiar with topics such as transparency, explainability, safety, bias, and so forth. Yet, there are no frameworks to quantify and measure those. Producing ever more trustworthy machine learning inferences is a path to increase the value of products (i.e., increased trust in the results) and to engage in conversations with users to gather feedback to improve products. In this paper, we begin by examining the dynamic of trust between a provider (Trustor) and users (Trustees). Trustors are required to be trusting and trustworthy, whereas trustees need not be trusting nor trustworthy. The challenge for trustors is to provide results that are good enough to make a trustee increase their level of trust above a minimum threshold for: 1- doing business together; 2- continuation of service. We conclude by defining and proposing a framework, and a set of viable metrics, to be used for computing a trust score and objectively understand how trustworthy a machine learning system can claim to be, plus their behavior over time.

Related papers

• Whether to trust: the ML leap of faith [0.0]
  Trust is commonly understood as an attitude, but we cannot accurately measure this, nor manage it. We conflate trust in the overall system, ML, and ML's component parts; so most users do not understand the leap of faith they take when they trust ML. Current efforts to build trust explain ML's process, which can be hard for non-ML experts to comprehend because it is complex, and explanations are unrelated to their own (unarticulated) mental models. We propose an innovative way of directly building intrinsic trust in ML, by discerning and measuring the Leap of Faith (LoF) taken when
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T14:36:19Z)
• When to Trust LLMs: Aligning Confidence with Response Quality [49.371218210305656]
  We propose CONfidence-Quality-ORDer-preserving alignment approach (CONQORD) It integrates quality reward and order-preserving alignment reward functions. Experiments demonstrate that CONQORD significantly improves the alignment performance between confidence and response accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T09:42:46Z)
• A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertainty [52.44939679369428]
  Modern NLP systems are often uncalibrated, resulting in confidently incorrect predictions that undermine user trust. We study the evolution of user trust in response to trust-eroding events using a betting game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T14:41:46Z)
• Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective [56.80107647520364]
  We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH. We highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. We propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T00:14:33Z)
• Trust in AI: Interpretability is not necessary or sufficient, while black-box interaction is necessary and sufficient [0.0]
  The problem of human trust in artificial intelligence is one of the most fundamental problems in applied machine learning. We draw from statistical learning theory and sociological lenses on human-automation trust to motivate an AI-as-tool framework. We clarify the role of interpretability in trust with a ladder of model access.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-10T19:59:23Z)
• Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI [55.4046755826066]
  We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold. We discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T03:07:23Z)
• Where Does Trust Break Down? A Quantitative Trust Analysis of Deep Neural Networks via Trust Matrix and Conditional Trust Densities [94.65749466106664]
  We introduce the concept of trust matrix, a novel trust quantification strategy. A trust matrix defines the expected question-answer trust for a given actor-oracle answer scenario. We further extend the concept of trust densities with the notion of conditional trust densities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T14:33:43Z)
• How Much Can We Really Trust You? Towards Simple, Interpretable Trust Quantification Metrics for Deep Neural Networks [94.65749466106664]
  We conduct a thought experiment and explore two key questions about trust in relation to confidence. We introduce a suite of metrics for assessing the overall trustworthiness of deep neural networks based on their behaviour when answering a set of questions. The proposed metrics are by no means perfect, but the hope is to push the conversation towards better metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-12T17:37:36Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.