Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jeanie W. Fung

dblp:319/3484 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-AI interaction · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-AI interaction
user perception of AI
0.212022
Owning Mistakes Sincerely: Strategies for Mitigating AI Errors · CHI 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

online study · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Owning Mistakes Sincerely: Strategies for Mitigating AI Errors
abstract
Interactive AI systems such as voice assistants are bound to make errors because of imperfect sensing and reasoning. Prior human-AI interaction research has illustrated the importance of various strategies for error mitigation in repairing the perception of an AI following a breakdown in service. These strategies include explanations, monetary rewards, and apologies. This paper extends prior work on error mitigation by exploring how different methods of apology conveyance may affect people’s perceptions of AI agents; we report an online study (N=37) that examines how varying the sincerity of an apology and the assignment of blame (on either the agent itself or others) affects participants’ perceptions and experience with erroneous AI agents. We found that agents that openly accepted the blame and apologized sincerely for mistakes were thought to be more intelligent, likeable, and effective in recovering from errors than agents that shifted the blame to others.
Amama Mahmood, Jeanie W. Fung, Isabel Won, Chien-Ming Huang 0001
CHI2