Online platforms provide support for many kinds of distress, including suicidal thoughts and behaviors. However, because many platforms restrict suicidal talk, volunteers on these platforms struggle with how to help suicidal people who come for support. We interviewed 11 volunteer counselors in a large online support platform, including after they role-played conversations with varying severities of suicidality, to explore practices and challenges when identifying and responding to suicidality. We then presented Speed Dating design concepts around emotional preparation and support, real-time guidance, training, and suicide detection. Participants wanted more support and preparation for conversations with suicidal people, but were conflicted about AI-based technologies, including trade-offs between potential benefits of conversational agents for training and limitations of prediction or real-time response suggestions, due to the sensitive, context-dependent decisions that volunteers must make. Our work has important implications for nuanced considerations and design choices around developing digital mental health technologies.

Data-driven AI systems are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in complex, social contexts, such as social work or legal practice. Yet, most existing design knowledge regarding how to best support AI-augmented decision-making comes from studies in comparatively well-defined settings. In this paper, we present findings from design interviews with 12 social workers who use an algorithmic decision support tool (ADS) to assist their day-to-day child maltreatment screening decisions. We generated a range of design concepts, each envisioning different ways of redesigning or augmenting the ADS interface. Overall, workers desired ways to understand the risk score and incorporate contextual knowledge, which move beyond existing notions of AI interpretability. Conversations around our design concepts also surfaced more fundamental concerns around the assumptions underlying statistical prediction, such as inference based on similar historical cases and statistical notions of uncertainty. Based on our findings, we discuss how ADS may be better designed to support the roles of human decision-makers in social decision-making contexts.

Machine learning tools have been deployed in various contexts to support human decision-making, in the hope that human-algorithm collaboration can improve decision quality. However, the question of whether such collaborations reduce or exacerbate biases in decision-making remains underexplored. In this work, we conducted a mixed-methods study, analyzing child welfare call screen workers’ decision-making over a span of four years, and interviewing them on how they incorporate algorithmic predictions into their decision-making process. Our data analysis shows that, compared to the algorithm alone, workers reduced the disparity in screen-in rate between Black and white children from 20% to 9%. Our qualitative data show that workers achieved this by making holistic risk assessments and adjusting for the algorithm’s limitations. Our analyses also show more nuanced results about how human-algorithm collaboration affects prediction accuracy, and how to measure these effects. These results shed light on potential mechanisms for improving human-algorithm collaboration in high-risk decision-making contexts.

AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers’ experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. Overall, we observe how workers’ reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS’s capabilities and limitations relative to their own, (3) organizational pressures and incentives around the use of the ADS, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives. Drawing upon these findings, we discuss design implications towards supporting more effective human-AI decision-making.

In settings where Machine Learning (ML) algorithms automate or inform consequential decisions about people, individual decision subjects are often incentivized to strategically modify their observable attributes to receive more favorable predictions. As a result, the distribution the assessment rule is trained on may differ from the one it operates on in deployment. While such distribution shifts, in general, can hinder accurate predictions, our work identifies a unique opportunity associated with shifts due to strategic responses: We show that we can use strategic responses effectively to recover causal relationships between the observable features and outcomes we wish to predict, even under the presence of unobserved confounding variables. Specifically, our work establishes a novel connection between strategic responses to ML models and instrumental variable (IV) regression by observing that the sequence of deployed models can be viewed as an instrument that affects agents’ observable features but does not directly influence their outcomes. We show that our causal recovery method can be utilized to improve decision-making across several important criteria: individual fairness, agent outcomes, and predictive risk. In particular, we show that if decision subjects differ in their ability to modify non-causal attributes, any decision rule deviating from the causal coefficients can lead to (potentially unbounded) individual-level unfairness. .

Recent work in fair machine learning has proposed dozens of technical definitions of algorithmic fairness and methods for enforcing these definitions. However, we still lack an understanding of how to develop machine learning systems with fairness criteria that reflect relevant stakeholders’ nuanced viewpoints in real-world contexts. To address this gap, we propose a framework for eliciting stakeholders’ subjective fairness notions. Combining a user interface that allows stakeholders to examine the data and the algorithm’s predictions with an interview protocol to probe stakeholders’ thoughts while they are interacting with the interface, we can identify stakeholders’ fairness beliefs and principles. We conduct a user study to evaluate our framework in the setting of a child maltreatment predictive system. Our evaluations show that the framework allows stakeholders to comprehensively convey their fairness viewpoints. We also discuss how our results can inform the design of predictive systems.

Randomized experiments can be susceptible to selection bias due to potential non-compliance by the participants. While much of the existing work has studied compliance as a static behavior, we propose a game-theoretic model to study compliance as dynamic behavior that may change over time. In rounds, a social planner interacts with a sequence of heterogeneous agents who arrive with their unobserved private type that determines both their prior preferences across the actions (e.g., control and treatment) and their baseline rewards without taking any treatment. The planner provides each agent with a randomized recommendation that may alter their beliefs and their action selection. We develop a novel recommendation mechanism that views the planner’s recommendation as a form of instrumental variable (IV) that only affects an agents’ action selection, but not the observed rewards. We construct such IVs by carefully mapping the history –the interactions between the planner and the previous agents– to a random recommendation. Even though the initial agents may be completely non-compliant, our mechanism can incentivize compliance over time, thereby enabling the estimation of the treatment effect of each treatment, and minimizing the cumulative regret of the planner whose goal is to identify the optimal treatment.