Abstract:Understanding collaborative writing dynamics between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) is critical for enhancing collaboration quality and team inclusivity. In this paper, we partnered with communication researchers to develop visual analytics solutions for comparing NS and NNS behaviors in 162 writing sessions across 27 teams. The primary challenges in analyzing writing behaviors are data complexity and the uncertainties introduced by automated methods. In response, we present \textsc{COALA}, a novel visual analytics tool that improves model interpretability by displaying uncertainties in author clusters, generating behavior summaries using large language models, and visualizing writing-related actions at multiple granularities. We validated the effectiveness of \textsc{COALA} through user studies with domain experts (N=2+2) and researchers with relevant experience (N=8). We present the insights discovered by participants using \textsc{COALA}, suggest features for future AI-assisted collaborative writing tools, and discuss the broader implications for analyzing collaborative processes beyond writing.
Abstract:A major challenge in the practical use of Machine Translation (MT) is that users lack guidance to make informed decisions about when to rely on outputs. Progress in quality estimation research provides techniques to automatically assess MT quality, but these techniques have primarily been evaluated in vitro by comparison against human judgments outside of a specific context of use. This paper evaluates quality estimation feedback in vivo with a human study simulating decision-making in high-stakes medical settings. Using Emergency Department discharge instructions, we study how interventions based on quality estimation versus backtranslation assist physicians in deciding whether to show MT outputs to a patient. We find that quality estimation improves appropriate reliance on MT, but backtranslation helps physicians detect more clinically harmful errors that QE alone often misses.