Advertisement

A Methodology to Involve Domain Experts and Machine Learning Techniques in the Design of Human-Centered Algorithms

  • Tom SeymoensEmail author
  • Femke Ongenae
  • An Jacobs
  • Stijn Verstichel
  • Ann Ackaert
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 544)

Abstract

Machine learning techniques are increasingly applied in Decision Support Systems. The selection processes underlying a conclusion often become black-boxed. Thus, the decision flow is not always comprehensible by developers or end users. It is unclear what the priorities are and whether all of the relevant information is used. In order to achieve human interpretability of the created algorithms, it is recommended to include domain experts in the modelling phase. Their knowledge is elicited through a combination of machine learning and social science techniques. The idea is not new, but it remains a challenge to extract and apply the experts’ experience without overburdening them. The current paper describes a methodology set to unravel, define and categorize the implicit and explicit domain knowledge in a less intense way by making use of co-creation to design human-centered algorithms, when little data is available. The methodology is applied to a case in the health domain, targeting a rheumatology triage problem. The domain knowledge is obtained through dialogue, by alternating workshops and data science exercises.

Keywords

Human-centered algorithms Decision Support Systems Knowledge elicitation methods Knowledge engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Klaas Vandevyvere, MD, for his support in this research, both as project initiator and rheumatologist.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnott, D., Pervan, G.: Eight key issues for the decision support systems discipline. Decis. Support Syst. 44, 657–672 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keen, P.G.W.: Decision support systems: the next decade. Decis. Support Syst. 3, 253–265 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shim, J.P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J.F., Power, D.J., Sharda, R., Carlsson, C.: Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decis. Support Syst. 33, 111–126 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stivaros, S.M., Gledson, A., Nenadic, G., Zeng, X.J., Keane, J., Jackson, A.: Decision support systems for clinical radiological practice - towards the next generation. Br. J. Radiol. 83, 904–914 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gebus, S., Leiviskä, K.: Knowledge acquisition for decision support systems on an electronic assembly line. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 93–101 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haase, T., Termath, W., Martsch, M.: How to save expert knowledge for the organization: methods for collecting and documenting expert knowledge using virtual reality based learning environments. Procedia Comput. Sci. 25, 236–246 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holste, J.S., Fields, D.: Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. J. Knowl. Manag. 14, 128–140 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffman, R.R., Shadbolt, N.R., Burton, A.M., Klein, G.: Eliciting knowledge from experts: a methodological analysis. Organ. Behav. Decis. Processes 62(2), 129–158 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becerra-Fernandez, I., Sabherwal, R.: Knowledge management systems and processes (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wagner, W.P.: Trends in expert system development: a longitudinal content analysis of over thirty years of expert system case studies. Expert Syst. Appl. 76, 85–96 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeffery, A.D., Novak, L.L., Kennedy, B., Dietrich, M.S., Mion, L.C.: Participatory design of probability-based decision support tools for in-hospital nurses. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24(6), 1102–1110 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., Guestrin, C.: “Why should I trust you?”: explaining the predictions of any classifier (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Druzdzel, M.J., Flynn, R.R.: Decision support systems. In: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, pp. 1–15 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dalinger, E.: A framework for design of an integrated system for decision support and training. In: Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, ECCE 2013, p. 11 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lisboa, P.J.G.: Interpretability in machine learning – principles and practice. In: Masulli, F., Pasi, G., Yager, R. (eds.) WILF 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8256, pp. 15–21. Springer, Cham (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03200-9_2CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Power, D.J.: A Brief History of Decision Support Systems (2007). http://dssresources.com/history/dsshistoryv28.html
  17. 17.
    Garcia-Taylor, M.C.: Development of a knowledge-based framework for demand management for refrigerated and shelf-life constrained food supply chains (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Padma, T., Balasubramanie, P.: Domain experts’ knowledge-based intelligent decision support system in occupational shoulder and neck pain therapy. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 11, 1762–1769 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gai, Y., Dang, Y., Xu, Z.: A methodology for problem-driven knowledge acquisition and its application. In: Chen, J., Nakamori, Y., Yue, W., Tang, X. (eds.) KSS 2016. CCIS, vol. 660, pp. 82–93. Springer, Singapore (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2857-1_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vandewiele, G.: Enhancing white-box machine learning processes by incorporating semantic background knowledge. In: Blomqvist, E., Maynard, D., Gangemi, A., Hoekstra, R., Hitzler, P., Hartig, O. (eds.) ESWC 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10250, pp. 267–278. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58451-5_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turban, E., Volonio, L., Mclean, E., Wetherbe, J.: Information Technology for Management: Transforming Organizations in the Digital Economy. John Wiley & Sons, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lindgren, H.: Decision support system supporting clinical reasoning process – an evaluation study in dementia care. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 136, 315–320 (2008). eHealth Beyond Horiz. – Get IT ThereGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanders, L., Stappers, P.J.: Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kotsiantis, S.B.: Supervised machine learning: a review of classification techniques. Informatica 31, 249–268 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuhn, M., Johnson, K.: Applied Predictive Modeling. Springer, New York (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6849-3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Quinlan, J.R.: Improved use of continuous attributes in C4.5. J. Artif. Intell. 4, 77–90 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quinlan, J.R.: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Is See5/C5.0 Better Than C4.5? Springer (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Seymoens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Femke Ongenae
    • 2
  • An Jacobs
    • 1
  • Stijn Verstichel
    • 2
  • Ann Ackaert
    • 2
  1. 1.imec-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Internet and Data Lab - imecUniversiteit GentGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations