Exploring the Lands Between: A Method for Finding Differences between AI-Decisions and Human Ratings through Generated Samples

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12801v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:14:08 GMT
• Title: Exploring the Lands Between: A Method for Finding Differences between AI-Decisions and Human Ratings through Generated Samples
• Authors: Lukas Mecke, Daniel Buschek, Uwe Gruenefeld, Florian Alt,
• Abstract summary: We propose a method to find samples in the latent space of a generative model. By presenting those samples to both the decision-making model and human raters, we can identify areas where its decisions align with human intuition. We apply this method to a face recognition model and collect a dataset of 11,200 human ratings from 100 participants.
• Score: 45.209635328908746
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Many important decisions in our everyday lives, such as authentication via biometric models, are made by Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. These can be in poor alignment with human expectations, and testing them on clear-cut existing data may not be enough to uncover those cases. We propose a method to find samples in the latent space of a generative model, designed to be challenging for a decision-making model with regard to matching human expectations. By presenting those samples to both the decision-making model and human raters, we can identify areas where its decisions align with human intuition and where they contradict it. We apply this method to a face recognition model and collect a dataset of 11,200 human ratings from 100 participants. We discuss findings from our dataset and how our approach can be used to explore the performance of AI models in different contexts and for different user groups.

Related papers

• User-centric evaluation of explainability of AI with and for humans: a comprehensive empirical study [5.775094401949666]
  This study is located in the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) It focuses on the results of a user-centered assessment of commonly used eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T12:32:39Z)
• Evaluating Multiview Object Consistency in Humans and Image Models [68.36073530804296]
  We leverage an experimental design from the cognitive sciences which requires zero-shot visual inferences about object shape. We collect 35K trials of behavioral data from over 500 participants. We then evaluate the performance of common vision models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T17:59:13Z)
• Is my Data in your AI Model? Membership Inference Test with Application to Face Images [18.402616111394842]
  This article introduces the Membership Inference Test (MINT), a novel approach that aims to empirically assess if given data was used during the training of AI/ML models. We propose two MINT architectures designed to learn the distinct activation patterns that emerge when an Audited Model is exposed to data used during its training process. Experiments are carried out using six publicly available databases, comprising over 22 million face images in total.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T15:09:01Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)
• Human-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderation [47.102566259034326]
  We propose conditional delegation as an alternative paradigm for human-AI collaboration. We develop novel interfaces to assist humans in creating conditional delegation rules. Our study demonstrates the promise of conditional delegation in improving model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T17:00:02Z)
• DIME: Fine-grained Interpretations of Multimodal Models via Disentangled Local Explanations [119.1953397679783]
  We focus on advancing the state-of-the-art in interpreting multimodal models. Our proposed approach, DIME, enables accurate and fine-grained analysis of multimodal models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-03T20:52:47Z)
• Investigations of Performance and Bias in Human-AI Teamwork in Hiring [30.046502708053097]
  In AI-assisted decision-making, effective hybrid teamwork (human-AI) is not solely dependent on AI performance alone. We investigate how both a model's predictive performance and bias may transfer to humans in a recommendation-aided decision task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T17:58:07Z)
• Adversarial Sample Enhanced Domain Adaptation: A Case Study on Predictive Modeling with Electronic Health Records [57.75125067744978]
  We propose a data augmentation method to facilitate domain adaptation. adversarially generated samples are used during domain adaptation. Results confirm the effectiveness of our method and the generality on different tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-13T03:20:20Z)
• Model-agnostic Fits for Understanding Information Seeking Patterns in Humans [0.0]
  In decision making tasks under uncertainty, humans display characteristic biases in seeking, integrating, and acting upon information relevant to the task. Here, we reexamine data from previous carefully designed experiments, collected at scale, that measured and catalogued these biases in aggregate form. We design deep learning models that replicate these biases in aggregate, while also capturing individual variation in behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-09T04:34:58Z)

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.