Reliance and Automation for Human-AI Collaborative Data Labeling Conflict Resolution

Abstract

Human data labeling with multiple labelers and the resulting conflict resolution remains the norm for many enterprise machine learning pipelines. Conflict resolution can be a time-intensive and costly process. Our goal was to study how human-AI collaboration can improve conflict resolution, by enabling users to automate groups of conflict resolution tasks. However, little is known about whether and how people will rely on automation during conflict resolution. Currently, automation commonly uses labelers' majority vote labels for conflict resolution, as the top chosen label by most labelers is often correct. We envisioned a system where an AI would assist in finding cases where the labeler majority vote was wrong and where automation is supported for batches or groups of conflicts. In order to understand whether humans could use labeler and AI information effectively, we investigated how and when users rely on labeler and AI information and on automated group conflict resolution. We ran a study with 144 Mechanical Turk workers. We found that automation increased users' accuracy/time, use of automated conflict resolution was relatively similar regardless of whether the automation was based on labeler or AI selected labels, and providing labeler and AI selected labels may reduce inappropriate reliance on automation.

Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions

“…In contrast, most autonomous driving studies included information on the automation capabilities such as conditional automation levels (e.g., Level 3 -roughly 75% automation), except for one study, which included a highly automated system (Level 4) [61]. However, we found five studies that employed automation empowered by machine learning [71,109,110,132,141] and eight which specifically referred to artificial intelligence [11,12,43,83,100,118,144,145]. Some studies also referred to fictitious automated systems [94] and others to a Wizard-of-Oz manipulations [58].…”

Closing the Knowledge Gap in Designing Data Annotation Interfaces for AI-powered Disaster Management Analytic Systems

“…Similarly, Kairam and Heer [36] illustrated how crowd-parting analysis at the intermediate level offers insights into sources of disagreement not readily apparent when examining individual annotation sets or aggregated results. Brachman et al suggested a system where AI assists in identifying cases where the majority vote by labelers is incorrect, employing automation for conflict resolution tasks [11]. The outcome demonstrated that automated conflict resolution enhances user accuracy and efficiency.…”