AI systems depend on the invisible and undervalued labor of data workers, who are often treated as interchangeable units of labor rather than as collaborators with meaningful expertise. Critical scholars and practitioners have proposed alternative principles for data work, but few empirical studies examine how to enact them in practice. This paper bridges this gap through a case study of multilingual, iterative, and participatory data annotation processes with journalists and activists focused on news narratives of gender-related violence. We offer two methodological contributions. First, we demonstrate how workshops rooted in feminist epistemology can foster dialogue, build community, and disrupt knowledge hierarchies in data annotation. Second, drawing insights from practice, we deepen analysis of existing feminist and participatory principles. We show, for example, that prioritizing context and pluralism in practice may require “bounding” context and working towards what we describe as a “tactical consensus.” We also explore tensions around materially acknowledging labor while resisting transactional researcher-participant dynamics. Through this work, we contribute to growing efforts to reimagine data and AI development as relational and political spaces for understanding difference, enacting care, and building solidarity across shared struggles.

Desired model behavior often differs across contexts (e.g., different geographies, communities, or institutions), but there is little infrastructure to facilitate context-specific evaluations key to deployment decisions and building trust. Here, we present Kaleidoscope, a system for evaluating models in terms of user-driven, domain-relevant concepts. Kaleidoscope’s iterative workflow enables generalizing from a few examples into a larger, diverse set representing an important concept. These example sets can be used to test model outputs or shifts in model behavior in semantically-meaningful ways. For instance, we might construct a “xenophobic comments” set and test that its examples are more likely to be flagged by a content moderation model than a “civil discussion” set. To evaluate Kaleidoscope, we compare it against template- and DSL-based grouping methods, and conduct a usability study with 13 Reddit users testing a content moderation model. We find that Kaleidoscope facilitates iterative, exploratory hypothesis testing across diverse, conceptually-meaningful example sets.

Interpretability methods aim to help users build trust in and understand the capabilities of machine learning models. However, existing approaches often rely on abstract, complex visualizations that poorly map to the task at hand or require non-trivial ML expertise to interpret. Here, we present two interface modules that facilitate intuitively assessing model reliability. To help users better characterize and reason about a model’s uncertainty, we visualize raw and aggregate information about a given input’s nearest neighbors. Using an interactive editor, users can manipulate this input in semantically-meaningful ways, determine the effect on the output, and compare against their prior expectations. We evaluate our approach using an electrocardiogram beat classification case study. Compared to a baseline feature importance interface, we find that 14 physicians are better able to align the model’s uncertainty with domain-relevant factors and build intuition about its capabilities and limitations.

Machine learning (ML) systems often exhibit unexpectedly poor behavior when they are deployed in real-world domains. We identify underspecification in ML pipelines as a key reason for these failures. An ML pipeline is the full procedure followed to train and validate a predictor. Such a pipeline is underspecified when it can return many distinct predictors with equivalently strong test performance. Underspecification is common in modern ML pipelines that primarily validate predictors on held-out data that follow the same distribution as the training data. Predictors returned by underspecified pipelines are often treated as equivalent based on their training domain performance, but we show here that such predictors can behave very differently in deployment domains. This ambiguity can lead to instability and poor model behavior in practice, and is a distinct failure mode from previously identified issues arising from structural mismatch between training and deployment domains. We provide evidence that underspecfication has substantive implications for practical ML pipelines, using examples from computer vision, medical imaging, natural language processing, clinical risk prediction based on electronic health records, and medical genomics. Our results show the need to explicitly account for underspecification in modeling pipelines that are intended for real-world deployment in any domain.

To ensure accountability and mitigate harm, it is critical that diverse stakeholders can interrogate black-box automated systems and find information that is understandable, relevant, and useful to them. In this paper, we eschew prior expertise- and role-based categorizations of interpretability stakeholders in favor of a more granular framework that decouples stakeholders’ knowledge from their interpretability needs. We characterize stakeholders by their formal, instrumental, and personal knowledge and how it manifests in the contexts of machine learning, the data domain, and the general milieu. We additionally distill a hierarchical typology of stakeholder needs that distinguishes higher-level domain goals from lower-level interpretability tasks. In assessing the descriptive, evaluative, and generative powers of our framework, we find our more nuanced treatment of stakeholders reveals gaps and opportunities in the interpretability literature, adds precision to the design and comparison of user studies, and facilitates a more reflexive approach to conducting this research.

The biomedical field offers many learning tasks that share unique challenges: large amounts of unpaired data, and a high cost to generate labels. In this work, we develop a method to address these issues with semi-supervised learning in regression tasks (e.g., translation from source to target). Our model uses adversarial signals to learn from unpaired datapoints, and imposes a cycle-loss reconstruction error penalty to regularize mappings in either direction against one another. We first evaluate our method on synthetic experiments, demonstrating two primary advantages of the system: 1) distribution matching via the adversarial loss and 2) regularization towards invertible mappings via the cycle loss. We then show a regularization effect and improved performance when paired data is supplemented by additional unpaired data on two real biomedical regression tasks: estimating the physiological effect of medical treatments, and extrapolating gene expression (transcriptomics) signals. Our proposed technique is a promising initial step towards more robust use of adversarial signals in semi-supervised regression, and could be useful for other tasks (e.g., causal inference or modality translation) in the biomedical field.

Machine learning approaches have been effective in predicting adverse outcomes in different clinical settings. These models are often developed and evaluated on datasets with heterogeneous patient populations. However, good predictive performance on the aggregate population does not imply good performance for specific groups. In this work, we present a two-step framework to 1) learn relevant patient subgroups, and 2) predict an outcome for separate patient populations in a multi-task framework, where each population is a separate task. We demonstrate how to discover relevant groups in an unsupervised way with a sequence-to-sequence autoencoder. We show that using these groups in a multi-task framework leads to better predictive performance of in-hospital mortality both across groups and overall. We also highlight the need for more granular evaluation of performance when dealing with heterogeneous populations.