Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Finding AI’s Faults with AAR/AI: An Empirical Study

2022; Association for Computing Machinery; Volume: 12; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1145/3487065

2160-6463

Roli Khanna, Jonathan Dodge, A. W. Anderson, Rupika Dikkala, Jed Irvine, Zeyad Shureih, Kin-Ho Lam, Caleb Matthews, Zhengxian Lin, Minsuk Kahng, Alan Fern, Margaret Burnett,

Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Would you allow an AI agent to make decisions on your behalf? If the answer is “not always,” the next question becomes “in what circumstances”? Answering this question requires human users to be able to assess an AI agent—and not just with overall pass/fail assessments or statistics. Here users need to be able to localize an agent’s bugs so that they can determine when they are willing to rely on the agent and when they are not. After-Action Review for AI (AAR/AI), a new AI assessment process for integration with Explainable AI systems, aims to support human users in this endeavor, and in this article we empirically investigate AAR/AI’s effectiveness with domain-knowledgeable users. Our results show that AAR/AI participants not only located significantly more bugs than non-AAR/AI participants did (i.e., showed greater recall) but also located them more precisely (i.e., with greater precision). In fact, AAR/AI participants outperformed non-AAR/AI participants on every bug and were, on average, almost six times as likely as non-AAR/AI participants to find any particular bug. Finally, evidence suggests that incorporating labeling into the AAR/AI process may encourage domain-knowledgeable users to abstract above individual instances of bugs; we hypothesize that doing so may have contributed further to AAR/AI participants’ effectiveness.