Intuitiveness in Active Teaching

Machine learning is a double-edged sword: it gives rise to astonishing results in automated systems, but at the cost of tremendously large data requirements. This makes many successful algorithms from machine learning unsuitable for human-machine interaction, where the machine must learn from a small number of training samples that can be provided by a user within a reasonable time frame. Fortunately, the user can tailor the training data they create to be as useful as possible, severely limiting its necessary size – as long as they know about the machine’s requirements and limitations. Of course, acquiring this knowledge can in turn be cumbersome and costly. This raises the question how easy machine learning algorithms are to interact with. In this work we address this issue by analyzing the intuitiveness of certain algorithms when they are actively taught by users. After developing a theoretical framework of intuitiveness as a property of algorithms, we present and discuss the results of a large-scale user study into the performance and teaching strategies of 800 users interacting with prominent machine learning algorithms. Via this extensive examination we offer a systematic method to judge the efficacy of human-machine interactions and thus, to scrutinize how accessible, understandable, and fair, a system is.

[1]  Heiko Wersing,et al.  Incremental on-line learning: A review and comparison of state of the art algorithms , 2018, Neurocomputing.

[2]  Maya Cakmak,et al.  Eliciting good teaching from humans for machine learners , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Gerhard Widmer,et al.  Learning in the Presence of Concept Drift and Hidden Contexts , 1996, Machine Learning.

[4]  S. Epstein Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[5]  Jörn Hurtienne,et al.  Intuitive Use of User Interfaces: Defining a Vague Concept , 2007, HCI.

[6]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Updates in Human-AI Teams: Understanding and Addressing the Performance/Compatibility Tradeoff , 2019, AAAI.

[7]  Ass,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996 .

[8]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Systematic versus intuitive problem solving on the shop floor : does it matter? , 1993 .

[9]  Sandra Zilles,et al.  An Overview of Machine Teaching , 2018, ArXiv.

[10]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Computers are social actors , 1994, CHI '94.

[11]  Xiaojin Zhu,et al.  Machine Teaching: An Inverse Problem to Machine Learning and an Approach Toward Optimal Education , 2015, AAAI.

[12]  Hans Ulrich Simon,et al.  Recursive teaching dimension, VC-dimension and sample compression , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[13]  G. Regehr,et al.  Intuition in the context of discovery , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Ayumi Shinohara,et al.  Complexity of Teaching by a Restricted Number of Examples , 2009, COLT.

[15]  H. David Mathias,et al.  A Model of Interactive Teaching , 1997, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[16]  Bernhard Kainz,et al.  A Survey on Active Learning and Human-in-the-Loop Deep Learning for Medical Image Analysis , 2019, Medical Image Anal..

[17]  Michael Kearns,et al.  On the complexity of teaching , 1991, COLT '91.

[18]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[19]  William A. Gale,et al.  A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers , 1994, SIGIR '94.

[20]  Shai Ben-David,et al.  Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms , 2014 .

[21]  Stefan Wermter,et al.  Continual Lifelong Learning with Neural Networks: A Review , 2019, Neural Networks.

[22]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[23]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  Shai Ben-David,et al.  Self-Directed Learning and Its Relation to the VC-Dimension and to Teacher-Directed Learning , 2004, Machine Learning.

[25]  Le Song,et al.  Iterative Machine Teaching , 2017, ICML.

[26]  Been Kim,et al.  Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning , 2017, 1702.08608.

[27]  S. Epstein,et al.  Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  N. McGlynn Thinking fast and slow. , 2014, Australian veterinary journal.

[29]  David A. Broniatowski,et al.  The Role of Individual User Differences in Interpretable and Explainable Machine Learning Systems , 2020, ArXiv.

[30]  D. Kahneman A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[31]  Burr Settles,et al.  Active Learning Literature Survey , 2009 .