An important goal in the field of human-AI interaction is to help users more appropriately trust AI systems' decisions. A situation in which the user may particularly benefit from more appropriate trust is when the AI receives anomalous input or provides anomalous output. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work towards understanding how anomaly alerts may contribute to appropriate trust of AI. In a formative mixed-methods study with 4 radiologists and 4 other physicians, we explore how AI alerts for anomalous input, very high and low confidence, and anomalous saliency-map explanations affect users' experience with mockups of an AI clinical decision support system (CDSS) for evaluating chest x-rays for pneumonia. We find evidence suggesting that the four anomaly alerts are desired by non-radiologists, and the high-confidence alerts are desired by both radiologists and non-radiologists. In a follow-up user study, we investigate how high- and low-confidence alerts affect the accuracy and thus appropriate trust of 33 radiologists working with AI CDSS mockups. We observe that these alerts do not improve users' accuracy or experience and discuss potential reasons why.
Explanations are well-known to improve recommender systems' transparency. These explanations may be local, explaining an individual recommendation, or global, explaining the recommender model in general. Despite their widespread use, there has been little investigation into the relative benefits of these two approaches. Do they provide the same benefits to users, or do they serve different purposes? We conducted a 30-participant exploratory study and a 30-participant controlled user study with a research-paper recommender system to analyze how providing participants local, global, or both explanations influences user understanding of system behavior. Our results provide evidence suggesting that both explanations are more helpful than either alone for explaining how to improve recommendations, yet both appeared less helpful than global alone for efficiency in identifying false positives and negatives. However, we note that the two explanation approaches may be better compared in the context of a higher-stakes or more opaque domain.
Isolated silos of scientific research and the growing challenge of information overload limit awareness across the literature and hinder innovation. Algorithmic curation and recommendation, which often prioritize relevance, can further reinforce these informational "filter bubbles." In response, we describe Bridger, a system for facilitating discovery of scholars and their work, to explore design tradeoffs between relevant and novel recommendations. We construct a faceted representation of authors with information gleaned from their papers and inferred author personas, and use it to develop an approach that locates commonalities ("bridges") and contrasts between scientists -- retrieving partially similar authors rather than aiming for strict similarity. In studies with computer science researchers, this approach helps users discover authors considered useful for generating novel research directions, outperforming a state-of-art neural model. In addition to recommending new content, we also demonstrate an approach for displaying it in a manner that boosts researchers' ability to understand the work of authors with whom they are unfamiliar. Finally, our analysis reveals that Bridger connects authors who have different citation profiles, publish in different venues, and are more distant in social co-authorship networks, raising the prospect of bridging diverse communities and facilitating discovery.
Scientific silos can hinder innovation. These information "filter bubbles" and the growing challenge of information overload limit awareness across the literature, making it difficult to keep track of even narrow areas of interest, let alone discover new ones. Algorithmic curation and recommendation, which often prioritize relevance, can further reinforce these bubbles. In response, we describe Bridger, a system for facilitating discovery of scholars and their work, to explore design tradeoffs among relevant and novel recommendations. We construct a faceted representation of authors using information extracted from their papers and inferred personas. We explore approaches both for recommending new content and for displaying it in a manner that helps researchers to understand the work of authors who they are unfamiliar with. In studies with computer science researchers, our approach substantially improves users' abilities to do so. We develop an approach that locates commonalities and contrasts between scientists---retrieving partially similar authors, rather than aiming for strict similarity. We find this approach helps users discover authors useful for generating novel research ideas of relevance to their work, at a higher rate than a state-of-art neural model. Our analysis reveals that Bridger connects authors who have different citation profiles, publish in different venues, and are more distant in social co-authorship networks, raising the prospect of bridging diverse communities and facilitating discovery.