The goal of this project was test how different representations of state uncertainty impact human decision making. Across a series of experiments, we sought to answer fundamental questions about human cognitive biases and how they are impacted by visual and numerical information. The results of these experiments identify problems and pitfalls to avoid when for presenting algorithmic outputs that include state uncertainty to human decision makers. Our findings also point to important areas for future research that will enable system designers to minimize biases in human interpretation for the outputs of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other advanced analytic systems.
With machine learning (ML) technologies rapidly expanding to new applications and domains, users are collaborating with artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostic tools to a larger and larger extent. But what impact does ML aid have on cognitive performance, especially when the ML output is not always accurate? Here, we examined the cognitive effects of the presence of simulated ML assistance—including both accurate and inaccurate output—on two tasks (a domain-specific nuclear safeguards task and domain-general visual search task). Patterns of performance varied across the two tasks for both the presence of ML aid as well as the category of ML feedback (e.g., false alarm). These results indicate that differences such as domain could influence users’ performance with ML aid, and suggest the need to test the effects of ML output (and associated errors) in the specific context of use, especially when the stimuli of interest are vague or ill-defined
Reverse engineering (RE) analysts struggle to address critical questions about the safety of binary code accurately and promptly, and their supporting program analysis tools are simply wrong sometimes. The analysis tools have to approximate in order to provide any information at all, but this means that they introduce uncertainty into their results. And those uncertainties chain from analysis to analysis. We hypothesize that exposing sources, impacts, and control of uncertainty to human binary analysts will allow the analysts to approach their hardest problems with high-powered analytic techniques that they know when to trust. Combining expertise in binary analysis algorithms, human cognition, uncertainty quantification, verification and validation, and visualization, we pursue research that should benefit binary software analysis efforts across the board. We find a strong analogy between RE and exploratory data analysis (EDA); we begin to characterize sources and types of uncertainty found in practice in RE (both in the process and in supporting analyses); we explore a domain-specific focus on uncertainty in pointer analysis, showing that more precise models do help analysts answer small information flow questions faster and more accurately; and we test a general population with domain-general sudoku problems, showing that adding "knobs" to an analysis does not significantly slow down performance. This document describes our explorations in uncertainty in binary analysis.
In this project, our goal was to develop methods that would allow us to make accurate predictions about individual differences in human cognition. Understanding such differences is important for maximizing human and human-system performance. There is a large body of research on individual differences in the academic literature. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to connect this literature to applied problems, where we must predict how specific people will perform or process information. In an effort to bridge this gap, we set out to answer the question: can we train a model to make predictions about which people understand which languages? We chose language processing as our domain of interest because of the well- characterized differences in neural processing that occur when people are presented with linguistic stimuli that they do or do not understand. Although our original plan to conduct several electroencephalography (EEG) studies was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, we were able to collect data from one EEG study and a series of behavioral experiments in which data were collected online. The results of this project indicate that machine learning tools can make reasonably accurate predictions about an individual?s proficiency in different languages, using EEG data or behavioral data alone.
Due to their recent increases in performance, machine learning and deep learning models are being increasingly adopted across many domains for visual processing tasks. One such domain is international nuclear safeguards, which seeks to verify the peaceful use of commercial nuclear energy across the globe. Despite recent impressive performance results from machine learning and deep learning algorithms, there is always at least some small level of error. Given the significant consequences of international nuclear safeguards conclusions, we sought to characterize how incorrect responses from a machine or deep learning-assisted visual search task would cognitively impact users. We found that not only do some types of model errors have larger negative impacts on human performance than other errors, the scale of those impacts change depending on the accuracy of the model with which they are presented and they persist in scenarios of evenly distributed errors and single-error presentations. Further, we found that experiments conducted using a common visual search dataset from the psychology community has similar implications to a safeguards- relevant dataset of images containing hyperboloid cooling towers when the cooling tower images are presented to expert participants. While novice performance was considerably different (and worse) on the cooling tower task, we saw increased novice reliance on the most challenging cooling tower images compared to experts. These findings are relevant not just to the cognitive science community, but also for developers of machine and deep learning that will be implemented in multiple domains. For safeguards, this research provides key insights into how machine and deep learning projects should be implemented considering their special requirements that information not be missed.
As the ability to collect and store data grows, so does the need to efficiently analyze that data. As human-machine teams that use machine learning (ML) algorithms as a way to inform human decision-making grow in popularity it becomes increasingly critical to understand the optimal methods of implementing algorithm assisted search. In order to better understand how algorithm confidence values associated with object identification can influence participant accuracy and response times during a visual search task, we compared models that provided appropriate confidence, random confidence, and no confidence, as well as a model biased toward over confidence and a model biased toward under confidence. Results indicate that randomized confidence is likely harmful to performance while non-random confidence values are likely better than no confidence value for maintaining accuracy over time. Providing participants with appropriate confidence values did not seem to benefit performance any more than providing participants with under or over confident models.