How Accurate Does It Feel? -- Human Perception of Different Types of Classification Mistakes

February 13, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Andrea Papenmeier, Dagmar Kern, Daniel Hienert, Yvonne Kammerer, Christin Seifert arXiv ID 2302.06413 Category cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction Citations 22 Venue International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Supervised machine learning utilizes large datasets, often with ground truth labels annotated by humans. While some data points are easy to classify, others are hard to classify, which reduces the inter-annotator agreement. This causes noise for the classifier and might affect the user's perception of the classifier's performance. In our research, we investigated whether the classification difficulty of a data point influences how strongly a prediction mistake reduces the "perceived accuracy". In an experimental online study, 225 participants interacted with three fictive classifiers with equal accuracy (73%). The classifiers made prediction mistakes on three different types of data points (easy, difficult, impossible). After the interaction, participants judged the classifier's accuracy. We found that not all prediction mistakes reduced the perceived accuracy equally. Furthermore, the perceived accuracy differed significantly from the calculated accuracy. To conclude, accuracy and related measures seem unsuitable to represent how users perceive the performance of classifiers.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Human-Computer Interaction

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted