ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2023
Perspectives on incorporating expert feedback into model updates.
Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) practitioners are increasingly tasked with developing models that are aligned with non-technical experts' values and goals. However, there has been insufficient consideration of how practitioners should translate domain expertise into ML updates. In this review, we consider how to capture interactions between practitioners and experts systematically. We devise a taxonomy to match expert feedback types with practitioner updates. A practitioner may receive feedback from an expert at the observation or domain level and then convert this feedback into updates to the dataset, loss function, or parameter space. We review existing work from ML and human-computer interaction to describe this feedback-update taxonomy and highlight the insufficient consideration given to incorporating feedback from non-technical experts. We end with a set of open questions that naturally arise from our proposed taxonomy and subsequent survey.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.