Fix Kaleidoscope abstract

_pubs/kaleidoscope.md

@@ -30,4 +30,4 @@ materials:
     type: file
 teaser: 'Kaleidoscope’s workflow consists of identifying meaningful examples, generalizing them into larger, diverse sets representing important concepts, and using these concepts to specify and test model behavior.'
 ---
-To ensure accountability and mitigate harm, it is critical that diverse stakeholders can interrogate black-box automated systems and find information that is understandable, relevant, and useful to them. In this paper, we eschew prior expertise- and role-based categorizations of interpretability stakeholders in favor of a more granular framework that decouples stakeholders' knowledge from their interpretability needs. We characterize stakeholders by their formal, instrumental, and personal knowledge and how it manifests in the contexts of machine learning, the data domain, and the general milieu. We additionally distill a hierarchical typology of stakeholder needs that distinguishes higher-level domain goals from lower-level interpretability tasks. In assessing the descriptive, evaluative, and generative powers of our framework, we find our more nuanced treatment of stakeholders reveals gaps and opportunities in the interpretability literature, adds precision to the design and comparison of user studies, and facilitates a more reflexive approach to conducting this research.
+Desired model behavior often differs across contexts (e.g., different geographies, communities, or institutions), but there is little infrastructure to facilitate context-specific evaluations key to deployment decisions and building trust. Here, we present Kaleidoscope, a system for evaluating models in terms of user-driven, domain-relevant concepts. Kaleidoscope's iterative workflow enables generalizing from a few examples into a larger, diverse set representing an important concept. These example sets can be used to test model outputs or shifts in model behavior in semantically-meaningful ways. For instance, we might construct a “xenophobic comments” set and test that its examples are more likely to be flagged by a content moderation model than a “civil discussion” set. To evaluate Kaleidoscope, we compare it against template- and DSL-based grouping methods, and conduct a usability study with 13 Reddit users testing a content moderation model. We find that Kaleidoscope facilitates iterative, exploratory hypothesis testing across diverse, conceptually-meaningful example sets.