Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Finding AIs Faults with AAR/AI: An Empirical Study

Finding AIs Faults with AAR/AI: An Empirical Study 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) Association for Computing Machinery

Finding AIs Faults with AAR/AI: An Empirical Study

Download PDF
33 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/finding-ais-faults-with-aar-ai-an-empirical-study-lKeo08to05

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Association for Computing Machinery.
ISSN
2160-6455
eISSN
2160-6463
DOI
10.1145/3487065
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) – Association for Computing Machinery

Published: Mar 4, 2022

Keywords: AAR/AI

There are no references for this article.