Leveraging Variation Theory in Counterfactual Data Augmentation for Optimized Active Learning

Active Learning (AL) allows models to learn interactively from user feedback. This paper introduces a counterfactual data augmentation approach to AL, particularly addressing the selection of datapoints for user querying, a pivotal concern in enhancing data efficiency. Our approach is inspired by Variation Theory, a theory of human concept learning that emphasizes the essential features of a concept by focusing on what stays the same and what changes. Instead of just querying with existing datapoints, our approach synthesizes artificial datapoints that highlight potential key similarities and differences among labels using a neuro-symbolic pipeline combining large language models (LLMs) and rule-based models. Through an experiment in the example domain of text classification, we show that our approach achieves significantly higher performance when there are fewer annotated data. As the annotated training data gets larger the impact of the generated data starts to diminish showing its capability to address the cold start problem in AL. This research sheds light on integrating theories of human learning into the optimization of AL.

Antagonistic AI

The vast majority of discourse around AI development assumes that subservient, "moral" models aligned with "human values" are universally beneficial -- in short, that good AI is sycophantic AI. We explore the shadow of the sycophantic paradigm, a design space we term antagonistic AI: AI systems that are disagreeable, rude, interrupting, confrontational, challenging, etc. -- embedding opposite behaviors or values. Far from being "bad" or "immoral," we consider whether antagonistic AI systems may sometimes have benefits to users, such as forcing users to confront their assumptions, build resilience, or develop healthier relational boundaries. Drawing from formative explorations and a speculative design workshop where participants designed fictional AI technologies that employ antagonism, we lay out a design space for antagonistic AI, articulating potential benefits, design techniques, and methods of embedding antagonistic elements into user experience. Finally, we discuss the many ethical challenges of this space and identify three dimensions for the responsible design of antagonistic AI -- consent, context, and framing.

Imagining a Future of Designing with AI: Dynamic Grounding, Constructive Negotiation, and Sustainable Motivation

We ideate a future design workflow that involves AI technology. Drawing from activity and communication theory, we attempt to isolate the new value large AI models can provide design compared to past technologies. We arrive at three affordances -- dynamic grounding, constructive negotiation, and sustainable motivation -- that summarize latent qualities of natural language-enabled foundation models that, if explicitly designed for, can support the process of design. Through design fiction, we then imagine a future interface as a diegetic prototype, the story of Squirrel Game, that demonstrates each of our three affordances in a realistic usage scenario. Our design process, terminology, and diagrams aim to contribute to future discussions about the relative affordances of AI technology with regard to collaborating with human designers.

Supporting Sensemaking of Large Language Model Outputs at Scale

Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating multiple responses to a single prompt, yet little effort has been expended to help end-users or system designers make use of this capability. In this paper, we explore how to present many LLM responses at once. We design five features, which include both pre-existing and novel methods for computing similarities and differences across textual documents, as well as how to render their outputs. We report on a controlled user study (n=24) and eight case studies evaluating these features and how they support users in different tasks. We find that the features support a wide variety of sensemaking tasks and even make tasks previously considered to be too difficult by our participants now tractable. Finally, we present design guidelines to inform future explorations of new LLM interfaces.

Metric Elicitation; Moving from Theory to Practice

Metric Elicitation (ME) is a framework for eliciting classification metrics that better align with implicit user preferences based on the task and context. The existing ME strategy so far is based on the assumption that users can most easily provide preference feedback over classifier statistics such as confusion matrices. This work examines ME, by providing a first ever implementation of the ME strategy. Specifically, we create a web-based ME interface and conduct a user study that elicits users' preferred metrics in a binary classification setting. We discuss the study findings and present guidelines for future research in this direction.

Evaluating the Interpretability of Generative Models by Interactive Reconstruction

For machine learning models to be most useful in numerous sociotechnical systems, many have argued that they must be human-interpretable. However, despite increasing interest in interpretability, there remains no firm consensus on how to measure it. This is especially true in representation learning, where interpretability research has focused on "disentanglement" measures only applicable to synthetic datasets and not grounded in human factors. We introduce a task to quantify the human-interpretability of generative model representations, where users interactively modify representations to reconstruct target instances. On synthetic datasets, we find performance on this task much more reliably differentiates entangled and disentangled models than baseline approaches. On a real dataset, we find it differentiates between representation learning methods widely believed but never shown to produce more or less interpretable models. In both cases, we ran small-scale think-aloud studies and large-scale experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk to confirm that our qualitative and quantitative results agreed.

Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systems

Explainable artificially intelligent (XAI) systems form part of sociotechnical systems, e.g., human+AI teams tasked with making decisions. Yet, current XAI systems are rarely evaluated by measuring the performance of human+AI teams on actual decision-making tasks. We conducted two online experiments and one in-person think-aloud study to evaluate two currently common techniques for evaluating XAI systems: (1) using proxy, artificial tasks such as how well humans predict the AI's decision from the given explanations, and (2) using subjective measures of trust and preference as predictors of actual performance. The results of our experiments demonstrate that evaluations with proxy tasks did not predict the results of the evaluations with the actual decision-making tasks. Further, the subjective measures on evaluations with actual decision-making tasks did not predict the objective performance on those same tasks. Our results suggest that by employing misleading evaluation methods, our field may be inadvertently slowing its progress toward developing human+AI teams that can reliably perform better than humans or AIs alone.