Trust Your Gut: Comparing Human and Machine Inference from Noisy Visualizations
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines how human and machine inference from noisy visualizations compare
- Focuses on understanding the differences between heuristic and rational decision-making
- Investigates the role of trust and uncertainty in human and machine inference
Plain English Explanation
This research paper explores the differences between how humans and machines make inferences from noisy or imperfect data visualizations. The researchers were interested in understanding the tradeoffs between heuristic decision-making (using gut instincts) and more rational, analytical approaches.
The paper looks at how factors like trust and uncertainty influence the inferences that humans and machines make. For example, humans may rely more on heuristics and intuition when faced with noisy data, while machines may struggle to handle uncertainty and ambiguity.
By comparing the performance of humans and machines on tasks involving interpreting noisy visualizations, the researchers aimed to gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. This could help inform the development of AI systems that can better collaborate with human experts and leverage the unique capabilities of both.
Technical Explanation
The research paper presents a series of experiments that compare human and machine inference on tasks involving the interpretation of noisy data visualizations. The researchers designed a custom dataset of synthetic visualizations with varying levels of noise and uncertainty, and then assessed the performance of both human participants and machine learning models on these tasks.
The experiments explored factors like trust, uncertainty, and the use of heuristics versus more analytical approaches. The researchers found that humans tended to rely more on intuition and gut feelings when faced with noisy data, while machine models struggled to handle ambiguity and uncertainty.
The paper provides insights into the strengths and limitations of human and machine decision-making in the context of interpreting complex, noisy data. These findings could have important implications for the development of AI systems that can effectively collaborate with human experts and leverage the complementary capabilities of both.
Critical Analysis
The research presented in this paper provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of the differences between human and machine inference from noisy data. The experimental design and analysis seem rigorous, and the findings offer important insights into the role of trust, uncertainty, and heuristics in decision-making.
However, the paper also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research. For example, the synthetic nature of the dataset may not fully capture the complexity and nuance of real-world data visualizations. Additionally, the study focused on a specific set of tasks and scenarios, and it's unclear how the results might generalize to other domains or applications.
Further research could explore the impact of different types of uncertainty on human and machine inference, as well as the potential for hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of both humans and machines. Investigating the role of context and domain knowledge could also provide valuable insights.
Conclusion
This research paper offers a thought-provoking examination of the differences between human and machine inference from noisy data visualizations. The findings highlight the importance of understanding the tradeoffs between heuristic and rational decision-making, and the critical role of trust and uncertainty in how humans and machines interpret complex information.
The insights gained from this work could have significant implications for the development of AI systems that can effectively collaborate with human experts and leverage the unique strengths of both. As the use of data visualization continues to grow, this research provides a valuable foundation for exploring ways to enhance the trust and effectiveness of human-AI partnerships.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Trust Your Gut: Comparing Human and Machine Inference from Noisy Visualizations
Ratanond Koonchanok, Michael E. Papka, Khairi Reda
People commonly utilize visualizations not only to examine a given dataset, but also to draw generalizable conclusions about the underlying models or phenomena. Prior research has compared human visual inference to that of an optimal Bayesian agent, with deviations from rational analysis viewed as problematic. However, human reliance on non-normative heuristics may prove advantageous in certain circumstances. We investigate scenarios where human intuition might surpass idealized statistical rationality. In two experiments, we examine individuals' accuracy in characterizing the parameters of known data-generating models from bivariate visualizations. Our findings indicate that, although participants generally exhibited lower accuracy compared to statistical models, they frequently outperformed Bayesian agents, particularly when faced with extreme samples. Participants appeared to rely on their internal models to filter out noisy visualizations, thus improving their resilience against spurious data. However, participants displayed overconfidence and struggled with uncertainty estimation. They also exhibited higher variance than statistical machines. Our findings suggest that analyst gut reactions to visualizations may provide an advantage, even when departing from rationality. These results carry implications for designing visual analytics tools, offering new perspectives on how to integrate statistical models and analyst intuition for improved inference and decision-making. The data and materials for this paper are available at https://osf.io/qmfv6
Read more7/25/2024
📊
0
Guided By AI: Navigating Trust, Bias, and Data Exploration in AI-Guided Visual Analytics
Sunwoo Ha, Shayan Monadjemi, Alvitta Ottley
The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in visual analytics (VA) tools raises vital questions about the behavior of users, their trust, and the potential of induced biases when provided with guidance during data exploration. We present an experiment where participants engaged in a visual data exploration task while receiving intelligent suggestions supplemented with four different transparency levels. We also modulated the difficulty of the task (easy or hard) to simulate a more tedious scenario for the analyst. Our results indicate that participants were more inclined to accept suggestions when completing a more difficult task despite the AI's lower suggestion accuracy. Moreover, the levels of transparency tested in this study did not significantly affect suggestion usage or subjective trust ratings of the participants. Additionally, we observed that participants who utilized suggestions throughout the task explored a greater quantity and diversity of data points. We discuss these findings and the implications of this research for improving the design and effectiveness of AI-guided VA tools.
Read more4/24/2024
🛸
0
The State of the Art in Enhancing Trust in Machine Learning Models with the Use of Visualizations
A. Chatzimparmpas (CEREMADE), R. Martins (CEREMADE), I. Jusufi (CEREMADE), K. Kucher (CEREMADE), Fabrice Rossi (CEREMADE), A. Kerren
Machine learning (ML) models are nowadays used in complex applications in various domains, such as medicine, bioinformatics, and other sciences. Due to their black box nature, however, it may sometimes be hard to understand and trust the results they provide. This has increased the demand for reliable visualization tools related to enhancing trust in ML models, which has become a prominent topic of research in the visualization community over the past decades. To provide an overview and present the frontiers of current research on the topic, we present a State-of-the-Art Report (STAR) on enhancing trust in ML models with the use of interactive visualization. We define and describe the background of the topic, introduce a categorization for visualization techniques that aim to accomplish this goal, and discuss insights and opportunities for future research directions. Among our contributions is a categorization of trust against different facets of interactive ML, expanded and improved from previous research. Our results are investigated from different analytical perspectives: (a) providing a statistical overview, (b) summarizing key findings, (c) performing topic analyses, and (d) exploring the data sets used in the individual papers, all with the support of an interactive web-based survey browser. We intend this survey to be beneficial for visualization researchers whose interests involve making ML models more trustworthy, as well as researchers and practitioners from other disciplines in their search for effective visualization techniques suitable for solving their tasks with confidence and conveying meaning to their data.
Read more4/19/2024
0
ViG-Bias: Visually Grounded Bias Discovery and Mitigation
Badr-Eddine Marani, Mohamed Hanini, Nihitha Malayarukil, Stergios Christodoulidis, Maria Vakalopoulou, Enzo Ferrante
The proliferation of machine learning models in critical decision making processes has underscored the need for bias discovery and mitigation strategies. Identifying the reasons behind a biased system is not straightforward, since in many occasions they are associated with hidden spurious correlations which are not easy to spot. Standard approaches rely on bias audits performed by analyzing model performance in pre-defined subgroups of data samples, usually characterized by common attributes like gender or ethnicity when it comes to people, or other specific attributes defining semantically coherent groups of images. However, it is not always possible to know a-priori the specific attributes defining the failure modes of visual recognition systems. Recent approaches propose to discover these groups by leveraging large vision language models, which enable the extraction of cross-modal embeddings and the generation of textual descriptions to characterize the subgroups where a certain model is underperforming. In this work, we argue that incorporating visual explanations (e.g. heatmaps generated via GradCAM or other approaches) can boost the performance of such bias discovery and mitigation frameworks. To this end, we introduce Visually Grounded Bias Discovery and Mitigation (ViG-Bias), a simple yet effective technique which can be integrated to a variety of existing frameworks to improve both, discovery and mitigation performance. Our comprehensive evaluation shows that incorporating visual explanations enhances existing techniques like DOMINO, FACTS and Bias-to-Text, across several challenging datasets, including CelebA, Waterbirds, and NICO++.
Read more7/4/2024