Trust Your Gut: Comparing Human and Machine Inference from Noisy Visualizations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16871v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 22:39:57 GMT
• Title: Trust Your Gut: Comparing Human and Machine Inference from Noisy Visualizations
• Authors: Ratanond Koonchanok, Michael E. Papka, Khairi Reda,
• Abstract summary: We investigate scenarios where human intuition might surpass idealized statistical rationality. Our findings suggest that analyst gut reactions to visualizations may provide an advantage, even when departing from rationality.
• Score: 7.305342793164905
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: People commonly utilize visualizations not only to examine a given dataset, but also to draw generalizable conclusions about the underlying models or phenomena. Prior research has compared human visual inference to that of an optimal Bayesian agent, with deviations from rational analysis viewed as problematic. However, human reliance on non-normative heuristics may prove advantageous in certain circumstances. We investigate scenarios where human intuition might surpass idealized statistical rationality. In two experiments, we examine individuals' accuracy in characterizing the parameters of known data-generating models from bivariate visualizations. Our findings indicate that, although participants generally exhibited lower accuracy compared to statistical models, they frequently outperformed Bayesian agents, particularly when faced with extreme samples. Participants appeared to rely on their internal models to filter out noisy visualizations, thus improving their resilience against spurious data. However, participants displayed overconfidence and struggled with uncertainty estimation. They also exhibited higher variance than statistical machines. Our findings suggest that analyst gut reactions to visualizations may provide an advantage, even when departing from rationality. These results carry implications for designing visual analytics tools, offering new perspectives on how to integrate statistical models and analyst intuition for improved inference and decision-making. The data and materials for this paper are available at https://osf.io/qmfv6

Related papers

• Utilizing Adversarial Examples for Bias Mitigation and Accuracy Enhancement [3.0820287240219795]
  We propose a novel approach to mitigate biases in computer vision models by utilizing counterfactual generation and fine-tuning. Our approach leverages a curriculum learning framework combined with a fine-grained adversarial loss to fine-tune the model using adversarial examples. We validate our approach through both qualitative and quantitative assessments, demonstrating improved bias mitigation and accuracy compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T00:41:32Z)
• Decoding Susceptibility: Modeling Misbelief to Misinformation Through a Computational Approach [61.04606493712002]
  Susceptibility to misinformation describes the degree of belief in unverifiable claims that is not observable. Existing susceptibility studies heavily rely on self-reported beliefs. We propose a computational approach to model users' latent susceptibility levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T07:22:56Z)
• Visual Validation versus Visual Estimation: A Study on the Average Value in Scatterplots [11.15435671066952]
  We investigate the ability of individuals to visually validate statistical models in terms of their fit to the data. It is unknown how well people are able to visually validate models, and how their performance compares to visual and computational estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-18T15:13:15Z)
• Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
  Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z)
• Bayesian Modeling of Language-Evoked Event-Related Potentials [0.0]
  We present a Bayesian approach to analyzing event-related potentials using as an example data from an experiment which relates word surprisal and neural response. Our model is able to estimate the effect of word surprisal on most components of the event-related potential and provides a richer description of the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-07T15:58:17Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• Statistical quantification of confounding bias in predictive modelling [0.0]
  I propose the partial and full confounder tests, which probe the null hypotheses of unconfounded and fully confounded models. The tests provide a strict control for Type I errors and high statistical power, even for non-normally and non-linearly dependent predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-01T10:35:24Z)
• Double Robust Representation Learning for Counterfactual Prediction [68.78210173955001]
  We propose a novel scalable method to learn double-robust representations for counterfactual predictions. We make robust and efficient counterfactual predictions for both individual and average treatment effects. The algorithm shows competitive performance with the state-of-the-art on real world and synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T16:39:26Z)
• Are Visual Explanations Useful? A Case Study in Model-in-the-Loop Prediction [49.254162397086006]
  We study explanations based on visual saliency in an image-based age prediction task. We find that presenting model predictions improves human accuracy. However, explanations of various kinds fail to significantly alter human accuracy or trust in the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-23T20:39:40Z)
• An Investigation of Why Overparameterization Exacerbates Spurious Correlations [98.3066727301239]
  We identify two key properties of the training data that drive this behavior. We show how the inductive bias of models towards "memorizing" fewer examples can cause over parameterization to hurt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-09T01:59:13Z)
• A comprehensive study on the prediction reliability of graph neural networks for virtual screening [0.0]
  We investigate the effects of model architectures, regularization methods, and loss functions on the prediction performance and reliability of classification results. Our result highlights that correct choice of regularization and inference methods is evidently important to achieve high success rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-17T10:13:31Z)

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.