The Flow of Trust: A Visualization Framework to Externalize, Explore, and Explain Trust in ML Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a conceptual framework for the development of visual interactive techniques to formalize and externalize trust in machine learning (ML) workflows. Currently, trust in ML applications is an implicit process that takes place in the user's mind. As such, there is no method of feedback or communication of trust that can be acted upon. Our framework will be instrumental in developing interactive visualization approaches that will help users to efficiently and effectively build and communicate trust in ways that fit each of the ML process stages. We formulate several research questions and directions that include: 1) a typology/taxonomy of trust objects, trust issues, and possible reasons for (mis)trust; 2) formalisms to represent trust in machine-readable form; 3) means by which users can express their state of trust by interacting with a computer system (e.g., text, drawing, marking); 4) ways in which a system can facilitate users' expression and communication of the state of trust; and 5) creation of visual interactive techniques for representation and exploration of trust over all stages of an ML pipeline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".