Interactivity x Explainability: Toward Understanding How Interactivity Can Improve Computer Vision Explanations

Explanations for computer vision models are important tools for interpreting how the underlying models work. However, they are often presented in static formats, which pose challenges for users, including information overload, a gap between semantic and pixel-level information, and limited opportunities for exploration. We investigate interactivity as a mechanism for tackling these issues in three common explanation types: heatmap-based, concept-based, and prototype-based explanations. We conducted a study (N=24), using a bird identification task, involving participants with diverse technical and domain expertise. We found that while interactivity enhances user control, facilitates rapid convergence to relevant information, and allows users to expand their understanding of the model and explanation, it also introduces new challenges. To address these, we provide design recommendations for interactive computer vision explanations, including carefully selected default views, independent input controls, and constrained output spaces.

Racial Bias Trends in the Text of US Legal Opinions

Although there is widespread recognition of racial bias in US law, it is unclear how such bias appears in the language of law, namely judicial opinions, and whether it varies across time period or region. Building upon approaches for measuring implicit racial bias in large-scale corpora, we approximate GloVe word embeddings for over 6 million US federal and state court cases from 1860 to 2009. We find strong evidence of racial bias across nearly all regions and time periods, as traditionally Black names are more closely associated with pre-classified "unpleasant" terms whereas traditionally White names are more closely associated with pre-classified "pleasant" terms. We also test whether legal opinions before 1950 exhibit more implicit racial bias than those after 1950, as well as whether opinions from Southern states exhibit less change in racial bias than those from Northeastern states. We do not find evidence of elevated bias in legal opinions before 1950, or evidence that legal opinions from Northeastern states show greater change in racial bias over time compared to Southern states. These results motivate further research into institutionalized racial bias.