HCI research on AI has largely focused on end-user interactions or the practices of developers working to improve system performance. This meetup proposes to broaden that scope of interaction to encompass the material, political, and economic dynamics that shape AI across its lifecycle. Drawing on STS, we recognize AI as the outcome of extended supply chains involving practitioners, organizations, infrastructures, and governance, all entangled with power asymmetries and economic incentives. Much of this supply chain remains invisible within HCI, yet it profoundly influences how AI systems are designed, deployed, and experienced. The meetup will bring together HCI scholars to explore how supply chain perspectives can enrich HCI research. We plan to gather researchers of the HCI community and beyond, in order to discuss how they could integrate the AI supply chain in their research and what would be the implications, and how HCI can further contribute to supply chain studies.

Unlike with traditional predictive AI models, today’s generative AI models are increasingly designed to be general-purpose, able to perform a wide range of tasks. This makes it challenging to develop a reliable and useful understanding of the ways in which this technology is and could be used. As a result, academic and policy researchers and generative AI providers have started to publish the results of their own investigations about the use of generative AI. This information is, however, fragmented, potentially incomplete, sometimes ambiguous, and often lacking in methodological specificity. In this paper, we conducted an integrative review to build a multi-dimensional framework that specifies what kind of information about generative AI use could be reported and how, and illustrated its analytical utility by applying the framework to a collection of over 110 industry documents. Our analysis reveals systematic patterns and omissions in current industry reporting and reflects on the narratives this reporting collectively advance about generative AI use.

Despite the impressive performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, their robustness remains elusive and constitutes a key issue that impedes large-scale adoption. Besides, robustness is interpreted differently across domains and contexts of AI. In this work, we systematically survey recent progress to provide a reconciled terminology of concepts around AI robustness. We introduce three taxonomies to organize and describe the literature both from a fundamental and applied point of view: (1) methods and approaches that address robustness in different phases of the machine learning pipeline; (2) methods improving robustness in specific model architectures, tasks, and systems; and in addition, (3) methodologies and insights around evaluating the robustness of AI systems, particularly the tradeoffs with other trustworthiness properties. Finally, we identify and discuss research gaps and opportunities and give an outlook on the field. We highlight the central role of humans in evaluating and enhancing AI robustness, considering the necessary knowledge they can provide, and discuss the need for better understanding practices and developing supportive tools in the future.

Human intervention is claimed to safeguard decision-subjects’ rights in algorithmic decision-making and contribute to their fairness perceptions. However, how decision-subjects perceive hybrid decision-maker configurations (i.e., combining humans and algorithms) is unclear. We address this gap through a mixed-methods study in an algorithmic policy enforcement context. Through qualitative interviews (Study 1; N1 = 21), we identify three characteristics (i.e., decision-maker’s profile, model type, input data provenance) that affect how decision-subjects perceive decision-makers’ ability, benevolence, and integrity (ABI). Through a quantitative study (Study 2; N2 = 223), we then systematically evaluate the individual and combined effects of these characteristics on decision-subjects’ perceptions towards decision-makers, and fairness perceptions. We found that only decision-maker’s profile contributes to perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity. Interestingly, the effect of decision-maker’s profile on fairness perceptions was mediated by perceived ability and integrity. Our findings have design implications for ensuring effective human intervention as a protection against harmful algorithmic decisions.

In AI research and practice, rigor remains largely understood in terms of methodological rigor – such as whether mathematical, statistical, or computational methods are correctly applied. We argue that this narrow conception of rigor has contributed to the concerns raised by the responsible AI community, including overblown claims about the capabilities of AI systems. Our position is that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed. We believe such a conception – in addition to a more expansive understanding of (1) methodological rigor – should include aspects related to (2) what background knowledge informs what to work on (epistemic rigor); (3) how disciplinary, community, or personal norms, standards, or beliefs influence the work (normative rigor); (4) how clearly articulated the theoretical constructs under use are (conceptual rigor); (5) what is reported and how (reporting rigor); and (6) how well-supported the inferences from existing evidence are (interpretative rigor). In doing so, we also provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community's work by researchers, policymakers, journalists, and other stakeholders.

Contestability has been proposed as a key element in designing algorithmic decision-making processes that safeguard decision subjects' rights to dignity and autonomy. However, little is known about how contestability can be operationalized based on decision subjects' needs and preferences. We address this research gap by identifying decision subjects' information and procedural needs for enacting meaningful contestability. To this end, we chose an illegal holiday rental detection scenario as our case; a high-risk decision-making process in the public sector. We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with citizens with experience renting their homes out and different levels of AI literacy. We found that decision subjects request interventions that facilitate (1) cooperation in sense-making, (2) support in contestation acts, and (3) appropriate responsibility attribution. Our results highlight the cooperative work behind contestability, and motivate future efforts to structure individual and collective action, to personalize explanations for contestability, and to open up sites of contestation in AI pipelines.

Machine learning (ML) models used in decision-making tasks are known to bear harmful impacts. To tackle such impact, researchers have focused on developing tools to mitigate algorithmic fairness issues and to support ML developers in their algorithmic fairness-centered practices. Yet, little has been triangulated about the concerns and practices of ML developers towards the broader impact of ML that arises from complex questions of distributive unfairness and unsustainable pillars underlying ML models (e.g., opaque task formulation, inappropriate datasets, energy-intensive infrastructures). In this qualitative study, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews using a convenience sampling of developers with varying educational backgrounds and varying experience with ML and algorithmic fairness. We surface (mis)conceptions and (questionable) practices around harms and their mitigation. Our study reveals no standard across developers' concerns and practices, and tensions developers face when attempting to curb the undesirable impacts of ML models. These insights triangulate prior results on algorithmic fairness and shed light on various unsolved theoretical, design, methodological, and governance challenges. Our findings constitute a vital step forward to support developers and our broader community in navigating this growing, increasingly ubiquitous, footprint of ML.

Research on trust in AI is limited to several trustors (e.g., end-users) and trustees (especially AI systems), and empirical explorations remain in laboratory settings, overlooking factors that impact trust relations in the real world. Here, we broaden the scope of research by accounting for the supply chains that AI systems are part of. To this end, we present insights from an in-situ, empirical, study of LLM supply chains. We conducted interviews with 71 practitioners, and analyzed their (collaborative) practices using the lens of trust drawing from literature in organizational psychology. Our work reveals complex trust dynamics at the junctions of the chains, with interactions between diverse technical artifacts, individuals, or organizations. These junctions might constitute terrain for uncalibrated reliance when trustors lack supply chain knowledge or power dynamics are at play. Our findings bear implications for AI researchers and policymakers to promote AI governance that fosters calibrated trust.

Concepts are an important construct in semantics, based on which humans understand the world with various levels of abstraction. With the recent advances in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), concept-level explanations are receiving an increasing amount of attention from the broad research community. However, laypeople may find such explanations difficult to digest due to the potential knowledge gap and the concomitant cognitive load. Inspired by prior work that has explored analogies and sensemaking, we argue that augmenting concept-level explanations with analogical inference information from commonsense knowledge can be a potential solution to tackle this issue. To investigate the validity of our proposition, we first designed an effective analogy-based explanation generation method and collected 600 analogy-based explanations from 100 crowd workers. Next, we proposed a set of structured dimensions for the qualitative assessment of such explanations, and conducted an empirical evaluation of the generated analogies with experts. Our findings revealed significant positive correlations between the qualitative dimensions of analogies and the perceived helpfulness of analogy-based explanations, suggesting the effectiveness of the dimensions. To understand the practical utility and the effectiveness of analogybased explanations in assisting human decision-making, we conducted a follow-up empirical study (N = 280) on a skin cancer detection task with non-expert humans and an imperfect AI system. Thus, we designed a between-subjects study spanning five different experimental conditions with varying types of explanations. The results of our study confirmed that a knowledge gap can prevent participants from understanding concept-level explanations. Consequently, when only the target domain of our designed analogy-based explanation was provided (in a specific experimental condition), participants demonstrated relatively more appropriate reliance on the AI system. In contrast to our expectations, we found that analogies were not effective in fostering appropriate reliance. We carried out a qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses from participants in the study regarding their perceived usefulness of explanations and analogies. Our findings suggest that human intuition and the perceived plausibility of analogies may have played a role in affecting user reliance on the AI system. We also found that the understanding of commonsense explanations varied with the varying experience of the recipient user, which points out the need for further work on personalization when leveraging commonsense explanations. In summary, although we did not find quantitative support for our hypotheses around the benefits of using analogies, we found considerable qualitative evidence suggesting the potential of high-quality analogies in aiding non-expert users in their decision making with AI-assistance. These insights can inform the design of future methods for the generation and use of effective analogy-based explanations.

Explainability and transparency of AI systems are undeniably important, leading to several research studies and tools addressing them. Existing works fall short of accounting for the diverse stakeholders of the AI supply chain who may differ in their needs and consideration of the facets of explainability and transparency. In this paper, we argue for the need to revisit the inquiries of these vital constructs in the context of LLMs. To this end, we report on a qualitative study with 71 different stakeholders, where we explore the prevalent perceptions and needs around these concepts. This study not only confirms the importance of exploring the “who” in XAI and transparency for LLMs, but also reflects on best practices to do so while surfacing the often forgotten stakeholders and their information needs. Our insights suggest that researchers and practitioners should simultaneously clarify the “who” in considerations of explainability and transparency, the “what” in the information needs, and “why” they are needed to ensure responsible design and development across the LLM supply chain.

With the widespread proliferation of AI systems, trust in AI is an important and timely topic to navigate. Researchers so far have largely employed a myopic view of this relationship. In particular, a limited number of relevant trustors (e.g., end-users) and trustees (i.e., AI systems) have been considered, and empirical explorations have remained in laboratory settings, potentially overlooking factors that impact human-AI relationships in the real world. In this paper, we argue for broadening the scope of studies addressing `trust in AI' by accounting for the complex and dynamic supply chains that AI systems result from. AI supply chains entail various technical artifacts that diverse individuals, organizations, and stakeholders interact with, in a variety of ways. We present insights from an in-situ, empirical study of LLM supply chains. Our work reveals additional types of trustors and trustees and new factors impacting their trust relationships. These relationships were found to be central to the development and adoption of LLMs, but they can also be the terrain for uncalibrated trust and reliance on untrustworthy LLMs. Based on these findings, we discuss the implications for research on `trust in AI'. We highlight new research opportunities and challenges concerning the appropriate study of inter-actor relationships across the supply chain and the development of calibrated trust and meaningful reliance behaviors. We also question the meaning of building trust in the LLM supply chain.

This workshop will grow and consolidate a community of interdisciplinary CSCW researchers focusing on the topic of contestable AI. As an outcome of the workshop, we will synthesize the most pressing opportunities and challenges for contestability along AI value chains in the form of a research roadmap. This roadmap will help shape and inspire imminent work in this field. Considering the length and depth of AI value chains, it will especially spur discussions around the contestability of AI systems along various sites of such chains. The workshop will serve as a platform for dialogue and demonstrations of concrete, successful, and unsuccessful examples of AI systems that (could or should) have been contested, to identify requirements, obstacles, and opportunities for designing and deploying contestable AI in various contexts. This will be held primarily as an in-person workshop, with some hybrid accommodation. The day will consist of individual presentations and group activities to stimulate ideation and inspire broad reflections on the field of contestable AI. Our aim is to facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue by bringing together researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to foster the design and deployment of contestable AI.

Clinicians increasingly pay attention to Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve the quality and timeliness of their services. There are converging opinions on the need for Explainable AI (XAI) in healthcare. However, prior work considers explanations as stationary entities with no account for the temporal dynamics of patient care. In this work, we involve 16 Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) clinicians from a European university medical centre and investigate their evolving uses and purposes for explainability throughout patient care. By applying a patient journey map for IPF, we elucidate clinicians’ informational needs, how human agency and patient-specific conditions can influence the interaction with XAI systems, and the content, delivery, and relevance of explanations over time. We discuss implications for integrating XAI in clinical contexts and more broadly how explainability is defined and evaluated. Furthermore, we reflect on the role of medical education in addressing epistemic challenges related to AI literacy.

Fairness toolkits are developed to support machine learning (ML) practitioners in using algorithmic fairness metrics and mitigation methods. Past studies have investigated practical challenges for toolkit usage, which are crucial to understanding how to support practitioners. However, the extent to which fairness toolkits impact practitioners’ practices and enable reflexivity around algorithmic harms remains unclear (i.e., distributive unfairness beyond algorithmic fairness, and harms that are not related to the outputs of ML systems). Little is currently understood about the root factors that fragment practices when using fairness toolkits and how practitioners reflect on algorithmic harms. Yet, a deeper understanding of these facets is essential to enable the design of support tools for practitioners. To investigate the impact of toolkits on practices and identify factors that shape these practices, we carried out a qualitative study with 30 ML practitioners with varying backgrounds. Through a mixed within and between-subjects design, we tasked the practitioners with developing an ML model, and analyzed their reported practices to surface potential factors that lead to differences in practices. Interestingly, we found that fairness toolkits act as double-edge swords — with potentially positive and negative impacts on practices. Our findings showcase a plethora of human and organizational factors that play a key role in the way toolkits are envisioned and employed. These results bear implications for the design of future toolkits and educational training for practitioners and call for the creation of new policies to handle the organizational constraints faced by practitioners.

Handling failures in computer vision systems that rely on deep learning models remains a challenge. While an increasing number of methods for bug identification and correction are proposed, little is known about how practitioners actually search for failures in these models. We perform an empirical study to understand the goals and needs of practitioners, the workflows and artifacts they use, and the challenges and limitations in their process. We interview 18 practitioners by probing them with a carefully crafted failure handling scenario. We observe that there is a great diversity of failure handling workflows in which cooperations are often necessary, that practitioners overlook certain types of failures and bugs, and that they generally do not rely on potentially relevant approaches and tools originally stemming from research. These insights allow to draw a list of research opportunities, such as creating a library of best practices and more representative formalisations of practitioners' goals, developing interfaces to exploit failure handling artifacts, as well as providing specialized training.

The creation of relevance assessments by human assessors (often nowadays crowdworkers) is a vital step when building IR test collections. Prior works have investigated assessor quality & behaviour, and tooling to support assessors in their task. We have few insights though into the impact of a document's presentation modality on assessor efficiency and effectiveness. Given the rise of voice-based interfaces, we investigate whether it is feasible for assessors to judge the relevance of text documents via a voice-based interface. We ran a user study (n = 49) on a crowdsourcing platform where participants judged the relevance of short and long documents- sampled from the TREC Deep Learning corpus-presented to them either in the text or voice modality. We found that: (i) participants are equally accurate in their judgements across both the text and voice modality; (ii) with increased document length it takes partic- ipants significantly longer (for documents of length > 120 words it takes almost twice as much time) to make relevance judgements in the voice condition; and (iii) the ability of assessors to ignore stimuli that are not relevant (i.e., inhibition) impacts the assessment quality in the voice modality-assessors with higher inhibition are significantly more accurate than those with lower inhibition. Our results indicate that we can reliably leverage the voice modality as a means to effectively collect relevance labels from crowdworkers.

Public attention towards explainability of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has been rising in recent years to offer methodologies for human oversight. This has translated into the proliferation of research outputs, such as from Explainable AI, to enhance transparency and control for system debugging and monitoring, and intelligibility of system process and output for user services. Yet, such outputs are difficult to adopt on a practical level due to a lack of a common regulatory baseline, and the contextual nature of explanations. Governmental policies are now attempting to tackle such exigence, however it remains unclear to what extent published communications, regulations, and standards adopt an informed perspective to support research, industry, and civil interests. In this study, we perform the first thematic and gap analysis of this plethora of policies and standards on explainability in the EU, US, and UK. Through a rigorous survey of policy documents, we first contribute an overview of governmental regulatory trajectories within AI explainability and its sociotechnical impacts. We find that policies are often informed by coarse notions and requirements for explanations. This might be due to the willingness to conciliate explanations foremost as a risk management tool for AI oversight, but also due to the lack of a consensus on what constitutes a valid algorithmic explanation, and how feasible the implementation and deployment of such explanations are across stakeholders of an organization. Informed by AI explainability research, we then conduct a gap analysis of existing policies, which leads us to formulate a set of recommendations on how to address explainability in regulations for AI systems, especially discussing the definition, feasibility, and usability of explanations, as well as allocating accountability to explanation providers.

Recent research claims that information cues and system attributes of algorithmic decision-making processes affect decision subjects’ fairness perceptions. However, little is still known about how these factors interact. This paper presents a user study (N = 267) investigating the individual and combined effects of explanations, human oversight, and contestability on informational and procedural fairness perceptions for high- and low-stakes decisions in a loan approval scenario. We find that explanations and contestability contribute to informational and procedural fairness perceptions, respectively, but we find no evidence for an effect of human oversight. Our results further show that both informational and procedural fairness perceptions contribute positively to overall fairness perceptions but we do not find an interaction effect between them. A qualitative analysis exposes tensions between information overload and understanding, human involvement and timely decision-making, and accounting for personal circumstances while maintaining procedural consistency. Our results have important design implications for algorithmic decision-making processes that meet decision subjects’ standards of justice.

High-quality data plays a vital role in developing reliable image classification models. Despite that, what makes an image difficult to classify remains an unstudied topic. This paper provides a first-of-its-kind, model-agnostic characterization of image atypicality based on human understanding. We consider the setting of image classification "in the wild", where a large number of unlabeled images are accessible, and introduce a scalable and effective human computation approach for proactive identification and characterization of atypical images. Our approach consists of i) an image atypicality identification and characterization task that presents to the human worker both a local view of visually similar images and a global view of images from the class of interest and ii) an automatic image sampling method that selects a diverse set of atypical images based on both visual and semantic features. We demonstrate the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of our approach through controlled crowdsourcing experiments and provide a characterization of image atypicality based on human annotations of 10K images. We showcase the utility of the identified atypical images by testing state-of-the-art image classification services against such images and provide an in-depth comparative analysis of the alignment between human- and machine-perceived image atypicality. Our findings have important implications for developing and deploying reliable image classification systems.