Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems can be highly accurate yet still fail to support users or improve decisions. Existing theories of AI-assisted decision-making focus on calibrating reliance on AI advice, leaving it unclear how different system designs might influence the reasoning processes underneath. We address this gap by reconsidering AI interfaces as collections of intelligent reasoning cues: discrete pieces of AI information that can individually influence decision-making. We then explore the roles of eight types of reasoning cues in a high-stakes clinical decision (treating patients with sepsis in intensive care). Through contextual inquiries with six teams and a think-aloud study with 25 physicians, we find that reasoning cues have distinct patterns of influence that can directly inform design. Our results also suggest that reasoning cues should prioritize tasks with high variability and discretion, adapt to ensure compatibility with evolving decision needs, and provide complementary, rigorous insights on complex cases.

Analyzing data subgroups is a common data science task to build intuition about a dataset and identify areas to improve model performance. However, subgroup analysis is prohibitively difficult in datasets with many features, and existing tools limit unexpected discoveries by relying on user-defined or static subgroups. We propose exploratory subgroup analysis as a set of tasks in which practitioners discover, evaluate, and curate interesting subgroups to build understanding about datasets and models. To support these tasks we introduce Divisi, an interactive notebook-based tool underpinned by a fast approximate subgroup discovery algorithm. Divisi's interface allows data scientists to interactively re-rank and refine subgroups and to visualize their overlap and coverage in the novel Subgroup Map. Through a think-aloud study with 13 practitioners, we find that Divisi can help uncover surprising patterns in data features and their interactions, and that it encourages more thorough exploration of subtypes in complex data.

Temporal predictive models have the potential to improve decisions in health care, public services, and other domains, yet they often fail to effectively support decision-makers. Prior literature shows that many misalignments between model behavior and decision-makers' expectations stem from issues of model specification, namely how, when, and for whom predictions are made. However, model specifications for predictive tasks are highly technical and difficult for non-data-scientist stakeholders to interpret and critique. To address this challenge we developed Tempo, an interactive system that helps data scientists and domain experts collaboratively iterate on model specifications. Using Tempo's simple yet precise temporal query language, data scientists can quickly prototype specifications with greater transparency about pre-processing choices. Moreover, domain experts can assess performance within data subgroups to validate that models behave as expected. Through three case studies, we demonstrate how Tempo helps multidisciplinary teams quickly prune infeasible specifications and identify more promising directions to explore.

Drug overdose deaths, including those due to prescription opioids, represent a critical public health issue in the United States and worldwide. Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have been developed and deployed to help prescribers assess a patient's risk for overdose-related death, but it is unknown whether public health experts can leverage similar predictions to make local resource allocation decisions more effectively. In this work, we evaluated how AI-based overdose risk assessment could be used to inform local public health decisions using a working prototype system. Experts from three health departments, of varying locations and sizes with respect to staff and population served, were receptive to the potential benefits of algorithmic risk prediction and of using AI-augmented visualization to connect across data sources. However, they also expressed concerns about whether the risk prediction model's formulation and underlying data would match the state of the overdose epidemic as it evolved in their specific locations. Our findings extend those of other studies on algorithmic systems in the public sector, and they present opportunities for future human-AI collaborative tools to support decision-making in local, time-varying contexts.

To deploy machine learning models on-device, practitioners use compression algorithms to shrink and speed up models while maintaining their high-quality output. A critical aspect of compression in practice is model comparison, including tracking many compression experiments, identifying subtle changes in model behavior, and negotiating complex accuracy-efficiency trade-offs. However, existing compression tools poorly support comparison, leading to tedious and, sometimes, incomplete analyses spread across disjoint tools. To support real-world comparative workflows, we develop an interactive visual system called COMPRESS AND COMPARE. Within a single interface, COMPRESS AND COMPARE surfaces promising compression strategies by visualizing provenance relationships between compressed models and reveals compression-induced behavior changes by comparing models' predictions, weights, and activations. We demonstrate how COMPRESS AND COMPARE supports common compression analysis tasks through two case studies, debugging failed compression on generative language models and identifying compression artifacts in image classification models. We further evaluate COMPRESS AND COMPARE in a user study with eight compression experts, illustrating its potential to provide structure to compression workflows, help practitioners build intuition about compression, and encourage thorough analysis of compression's effect on model behavior. Through these evaluations, we identify compression-specific challenges that future visual analytics tools should consider and COMPRESS AND COMPARE visualizations that may generalize to broader model comparison tasks.

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled unprecedented capabilities, yet innovation teams struggle when envisioning AI concepts. Data science teams think of innovations users do not want, while domain experts think of innovations that cannot be built. A lack of effective ideation seems to be a breakdown point. How might multidisciplinary teams identify buildable and desirable use cases? This paper presents a first hand account of ideating AI concepts to improve critical care medicine. As a team of data scientists, clinicians, and HCI researchers, we conducted a series of design workshops to explore more effective approaches to AI concept ideation and problem formulation. We detail our process, the challenges we encountered, and practices and artifacts that proved effective. We discuss the research implications for improved collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and discuss the role HCI might play in reducing the high failure rate experienced in AI innovation.

Custom animated visualizations of large, complex datasets are helpful across many domains, but they are hard to develop. Much of the difficulty arises from maintaining visualization state across many animated graphical elements that may change in number over time. We contribute Counterpoint, a framework for state management designed to help implement such visualizations in JavaScript. Using Counterpoint, developers can manipulate large collections of marks with reactive attributes that are easy to render in scalable APIs such as Canvas and WebGL. Counterpoint also helps orchestrate the entry and exit of graphical elements using the concept of a rendering "stage." Through a performance evaluation, we show that Counterpoint adds minimal overhead over current high-performance rendering techniques while simplifying implementation. We provide two examples of visualizations created using Counterpoint that illustrate its flexibility and compatibility with other visualization toolkits as well as considerations for users with disabilities. Counterpoint is open-source and available at https://github.com/cmudig/counterpoint.

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has the potential to improve patient outcomes, but clinician acceptance remains a critical barrier. We developed a novel decision support interface that provides interpretable treatment recommendations for sepsis, a life-threatening condition in which decisional uncertainty is common, treatment practices vary widely, and poor outcomes can occur even with optimal decisions. This system formed the basis of a mixed-methods study in which 24 intensive care clinicians made AI-assisted decisions on real patient cases. We found that explanations generally increased confidence in the AI, but concordance with specific recommendations varied beyond the binary acceptance or rejection described in prior work. Although clinicians sometimes ignored or trusted the AI, they also often prioritized aspects of the recommendations to follow, reject, or delay in a process we term “negotiation.” These results reveal novel barriers to adoption of treatment-focused AI tools and suggest ways to better support differing clinician perspectives.

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.

Modern machine learning techniques commonly rely on complex, high-dimensional embedding representations to capture underlying structure in the data and improve performance. In order to characterize model flaws and choose a desirable representation, model builders often need to compare across multiple embedding spaces, a challenging analytical task supported by few existing tools. We first interviewed nine embedding experts in a variety of fields to characterize the diverse challenges they face and techniques they use when analyzing embedding spaces. Informed by these perspectives, we developed a novel system called Emblaze that integrates embedding space comparison within a computational notebook environment. Emblaze uses an animated, interactive scatter plot with a novel Star Trail augmentation to enable visual comparison. It also employs novel neighborhood analysis and clustering procedures to dynamically suggest groups of points with interesting changes between spaces. Through a series of case studies with ML experts, we demonstrate how interactive comparison with Emblaze can help gain new insights into embedding space structure.

Voice communication adds nuance and expressivity to virtual discussions, but its one-shot nature tends to discourage collaborators from utilizing it. However, text-based interfaces have made voice editing much easier, especially with recent advancements enabling live, time-aligned speech transcription. We introduce SimpleSpeech, an easy-to-use platform for asynchronous audio communication (AAC) with lightweight tools for inserting content, adjusting pauses, and correcting transcript errors. Qualitative and quantitative results suggest that novice audio producers, such as high school students, experience decreased mental workload when using SimpleSpeech to produce audio messages than without editing. The linguistic formality in SimpleSpeech messages was also studied, and found to form a middle ground between oral and written media. Our findings on editable voice messages show new implications for the optimal design and use cases of AAC systems.