Are They the Same Picture? Adapting Concept Bottleneck Models for Human-AI Collaboration in Image Retrieval

Image retrieval plays a pivotal role in applications from wildlife conservation to healthcare, for finding individual animals or relevant images to aid diagnosis. Although deep learning techniques for image retrieval have advanced significantly, their imperfect real-world performance often necessitates including human expertise. Human-in-the-loop approaches typically rely on humans completing the task independently and then combining their opinions with an AI model in various ways, as these models offer very little interpretability or \textit{correctability}. To allow humans to intervene in the AI model instead, thereby saving human time and effort, we adapt the Concept Bottleneck Model (CBM) and propose \texttt{CHAIR}. \texttt{CHAIR} (a) enables humans to correct intermediate concepts, which helps \textit{improve} embeddings generated, and (b) allows for flexible levels of intervention that accommodate varying levels of human expertise for better retrieval. To show the efficacy of \texttt{CHAIR}, we demonstrate that our method performs better than similar models on image retrieval metrics without any external intervention. Furthermore, we also showcase how human intervention helps further improve retrieval performance, thereby achieving human-AI complementarity.

Impact of Large Language Model Assistance on Patients Reading Clinical Notes: A Mixed-Methods Study

Patients derive numerous benefits from reading their clinical notes, including an increased sense of control over their health and improved understanding of their care plan. However, complex medical concepts and jargon within clinical notes hinder patient comprehension and may lead to anxiety. We developed a patient-facing tool to make clinical notes more readable, leveraging large language models (LLMs) to simplify, extract information from, and add context to notes. We prompt engineered GPT-4 to perform these augmentation tasks on real clinical notes donated by breast cancer survivors and synthetic notes generated by a clinician, a total of 12 notes with 3868 words. In June 2023, 200 female-identifying US-based participants were randomly assigned three clinical notes with varying levels of augmentations using our tool. Participants answered questions about each note, evaluating their understanding of follow-up actions and self-reported confidence. We found that augmentations were associated with a significant increase in action understanding score (0.63 $\pm$ 0.04 for select augmentations, compared to 0.54 $\pm$ 0.02 for the control) with p=0.002. In-depth interviews of self-identifying breast cancer patients (N=7) were also conducted via video conferencing. Augmentations, especially definitions, elicited positive responses among the seven participants, with some concerns about relying on LLMs. Augmentations were evaluated for errors by clinicians, and we found misleading errors occur, with errors more common in real donated notes than synthetic notes, illustrating the importance of carefully written clinical notes. Augmentations improve some but not all readability metrics. This work demonstrates the potential of LLMs to improve patients' experience with clinical notes at a lower burden to clinicians. However, having a human in the loop is important to correct potential model errors.

Reflections from the Workshop on AI-Assisted Decision Making for Conservation

In this white paper, we synthesize key points made during presentations and discussions from the AI-Assisted Decision Making for Conservation workshop, hosted by the Center for Research on Computation and Society at Harvard University on October 20-21, 2022. We identify key open research questions in resource allocation, planning, and interventions for biodiversity conservation, highlighting conservation challenges that not only require AI solutions, but also require novel methodological advances. In addition to providing a summary of the workshop talks and discussions, we hope this document serves as a call-to-action to orient the expansion of algorithmic decision-making approaches to prioritize real-world conservation challenges, through collaborative efforts of ecologists, conservation decision-makers, and AI researchers.