Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Machine learning (2) (remove)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Medizin (1)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are currently hot topics in industry and business practice, while management-oriented research disciplines seem reluctant to adopt these sophisticated data analytics methods as research instruments. Even the Information Systems (IS) discipline with its close connections to Computer Science seems to be conservative when conducting empirical research endeavors. To assess the magnitude of the problem and to understand its causes, we conducted a bibliographic review on publications in high-level IS journals. We reviewed 1,838 articles that matched corresponding keyword-queries in journals from the AIS senior scholar basket, Electronic Markets and Decision Support Systems (Ranked B). In addition, we conducted a survey among IS researchers (N = 110). Based on the findings from our sample we evaluate different potential causes that could explain why ML methods are rather underrepresented in top-tier journals and discuss how the IS discipline could successfully incorporate ML methods in research undertakings.
This article discusses the counterpart of interactive machine learning, i.e., human learning while being in the loop in a human-machine collaboration. For such cases we propose the use of a Contradiction Matrix to assess the overlap and the contradictions of human and machine predictions. We show in a small-scaled user study with experts in the area of pneumology (1) that machine-learning based systems can classify X-rays with respect to diseases with a meaningful accuracy, (2) humans partly use contradictions to reconsider their initial diagnosis, and (3) that this leads to a higher overlap between human and machine diagnoses at the end of the collaboration situation. We argue that disclosure of information on diagnosis uncertainty can be beneficial to make the human expert reconsider her or his initial assessment which may ultimately result in a deliberate agreement. In the light of the observations from our project, it becomes apparent that collaborative learning in such a human-in-the-loop scenario could lead to mutual benefits for both human learning and interactive machine learning. Bearing the differences in reasoning and learning processes of humans and intelligent systems in mind, we argue that interdisciplinary research teams have the best chances at tackling this undertaking and generating valuable insights.