Whether to trust: the ML leap of faith

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00786v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:36:19 GMT
• Title: Whether to trust: the ML leap of faith
• Authors: Tory Frame, Julian Padget, George Stothart, Elizabeth Coulthard,
• Abstract summary: 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
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Human trust is critical for trustworthy AI adoption. 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 a user trusts ML. Our LoF matrix identifies where an ML model aligns to a user's own mental model. This match is rigorously yet practically identified by feeding the user's data and objective function both into an ML model and an expert-validated rules-based AI model, a verified point of reference that can be tested a priori against a user's own mental model. The LoF matrix visually contrasts the models' outputs, so the remaining ML-reasoning leap of faith can be discerned. Our proposed trust metrics measure for the first time whether users demonstrate trust through their actions, and we link deserved trust to outcomes. Our contribution is significant because it enables empirical assessment and management of ML trust drivers, to support trustworthy ML adoption. Our approach is illustrated with a long-term high-stakes field study: a 3-month pilot of a sleep-improvement system with embedded AI.

Related papers

• Learning to Route with Confidence Tokens [43.63392143501436]
  We study the extent to which large language models can reliably indicate confidence in their answers. We propose Self-REF, a lightweight training strategy to teach LLMs to express confidence in a reliable manner. Compared to conventional approaches such as verbalizing confidence and examining token probabilities, we demonstrate empirically that confidence tokens show significant improvements in downstream routing and rejection learning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T07:28:18Z)
• Fostering Trust and Quantifying Value of AI and ML [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T13:25:28Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• LACIE: Listener-Aware Finetuning for Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models [69.68379406317682]
  We introduce a listener-aware finetuning method (LACIE) to calibrate implicit and explicit confidence markers. We show that LACIE models the listener, considering not only whether an answer is right, but whether it will be accepted by a listener. We find that training with LACIE results in 47% fewer incorrect answers being accepted while maintaining the same level of acceptance for correct answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T17:16:38Z)
• Evaluation of Predictive Reliability to Foster Trust in Artificial Intelligence. A case study in Multiple Sclerosis [0.34473740271026115]
  Spotting Machine Learning failures is of paramount importance when ML predictions are used to drive clinical decisions. We propose a simple approach that can be used in the deployment phase of any ML model to suggest whether to trust predictions or not. Our method holds the promise to provide effective support to clinicians by spotting potential ML failures during deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T14:48:07Z)
• TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness [58.721012475577716]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:12:14Z)
• 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)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• 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)
• SoK: Machine Learning Governance [16.36671448193025]
  We develop the concept of ML governance to balance such benefits and risks. We use identities to hold principals accountable for failures of ML systems. We highlight the need for techniques that allow a model owner to manage the life cycle of their system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-20T17:56:22Z)
• 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.