How do you test a program when only a single user, with no expertise in software testing, is able to determine if the program is performing correctly? Such programs are common today in the form of machine-learned classifiers. We consider the problem of testing this common kind of machine-generated program when the only oracle is an end user: e.g., only you can determine if your email is properly filed. We present test selection methods that provide very good failure rates even for small test suites, and show that these methods work in both large-scale random experiments using a “gold standard” and in studies with real users. Our methods are inexpensive and largely algorithm-independent. Key to our methods is an exploitation of properties of classifiers that is not possible in traditional software testing. Our results suggest that it is plausible for time-pressured end users to interactively detect failures-even very hard-to-find failures-without wading through a large number of successful (and thus less useful) tests. We additionally show that some methods are able to find the arguably most difficult-to-detect faults of classifiers: cases where machine learning algorithms have high confidence in an incorrect result.

Applications that adapt to a particular end user often make inaccurate predictions during the early stages when training data is limited. Although an end user can improve the learning algorithm by labeling more training data, this process is time consuming and too ad hoc to target a particular area of inaccuracy. To solve this problem, we propose a new learning algorithm based on Locally Weighted Logistic Regression for feature labeling by end users, enabling them to point out which features are important for a class, rather than provide new training instances. In our user study, the first allowing ordinary end users to freely choose features to label directly from text documents, our algorithm was more effective than others at leveraging end users’ feature labels to improve the learning algorithm. Our results strongly suggest that allowing users to freely choose features to label is a promising method for allowing end users to improve learning algorithms effectively.

When intelligent interfaces, such as intelligent desktop assistants, email classifiers, and recommender systems, customize themselves to a particular end user, such customizations can decrease productivity and increase frustration due to inaccurate predictions - especially in early stages, when training data is limited. The end user can improve the learning algorithm by tediously labeling a substantial amount of additional training data, but this takes time and is too ad hoc to target a particular area of inaccuracy. To solve this problem, we propose a new learning algorithm based on locally weighted regression for feature labeling by end users, enabling them to point out which features are important for a class, rather than provide new training instances. In our user study, the first allowing ordinary end users to freely choose features to label directly from text documents, our algorithm was both more effective than others at leveraging end users' feature labels to improve the learning algorithm, and more robust to real users' noisy feature labels. These results strongly suggest that allowing users to freely choose features to label is a promising method for allowing end users to improve learning algorithms effectively.

Many machine-learning algorithms learn rules of behavior from individual end users, such as task-oriented desktop organizers and handwriting recognizers. These rules form a “program” that tells the computer what to do when future inputs arrive. Little research has explored how an end user can debug these programs when they make mistakes. We present our progress toward enabling end users to debug these learned programs via a Natural Programming methodology. We began with a formative study exploring how users reason about and correct a text-classification program. From the results, we derived and prototyped a concept based on “explanatory debugging”, then empirically evaluated it. Our results contribute methods for exposing a learned program's logic to end users and for eliciting user corrections to improve the program's predictions.