skip to main content
10.1145/3589334.3648155acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Predicting and Presenting Task Difficulty for Crowdsourcing Food Rescue Platforms

Published:13 May 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Food waste and food insecurity are two problems that co-exist worldwide. A major force to combat food waste and insecurity, food rescue platforms (FRP) match food donations to low-resource communities. Since they rely on external volunteers to deliver the food, communicating rescue task difficulty to volunteers is very important for volunteer engagement and retention. We develop a hybrid model with tabular and natural language data to predict the difficulty of a given rescue trip, which significantly outperforms baselines in identifying easy and hard rescues. Furthermore, using storyboards, we conducted interviews with different stakeholders to understand their perspectives on how to integrate such predictions into volunteers' workflow. Motivated by our findings, we developed three explanation methods to generate interpretable insights for volunteers to better understand the predictions. The results from this study are in the process of being adopted at Food Rescue Hero, a large FRP serving over 25 cities across the United States.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

w4g0116.mp4

Supplemental video

mp4

27.8 MB

References

  1. Martin Aleksandrov, Haris Aziz, Serge Gaspers, and Toby Walsh. 2015. Online fair division: analysing a food bank problem. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2540--2546.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia D'iaz-Rodr'iguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador Garc'ia, Sergio Gil-López, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, et al. 2020. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information fusion , Vol. 58 (2020), 82--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological, , Harris Cooper, Paul M Camic, Debra L Long, A T Panter, David Rindskopf, and Kenneth J Sher (Eds.). American Psychological Association, 57--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, Vol. 11, 4 (2019), 589--597.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , Vol. 33 (2020), 1877--1901.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Shuo Chang, F Maxwell Harper, and Loren Gilbert Terveen. 2016. Crowd-based personalized natural language explanations for recommendations. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems. 175--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Hanxiong Chen, Xu Chen, Shaoyun Shi, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2021. Generate natural language explanations for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03392 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Matthew P Rabbitt, Christian A Gregory, and Anita Singh. 2018. Household Food Security in the United States in 2017. USDA-ERS Economic Research Report (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Zach Conrad, Meredith T Niles, Deborah A Neher, Eric D Roy, Nicole E Tichenor, and Lisa Jahns. 2018. Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability. PloS one, Vol. 13, 4 (2018), e0195405.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Scott Davidoff, Min Kyung Lee, Anind K Dey, and John Zimmerman. 2007. Rapidly exploring application design through speed dating. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Ubiquitous computing. Springer, 429--446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Canan Gunes, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, and Sridhar Tayur. 2010. Vehicle routing for food rescue programs: A comparison of different approaches. In CPAIOR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruce Hanington and Bella Martin. 2012. Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Quarto Publishing Group USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Robert R Hoffman, Shane T Mueller, Gary Klein, and Jordan Litman. 2023. Measures for explainable AI: Explanation goodness, user satisfaction, mental models, curiosity, trust, and human-AI performance. Frontiers in Computer Science , Vol. 5 (2023), 1096257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kenneth Holstein, Bruce M. McLaren, and Vincent Aleven. 2019. Designing for Complementarity: Teacher and Student Needs for Orchestration Support in AI-enhanced Classrooms. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education. Springer, 257--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Logan Stapleton, Hao-Fei Cheng, Adam Perer, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2022. Why Do I Care What's Similar? Probing Challenges in AI-Assisted Child Welfare Decision-Making through Worker-AI Interface Design Concepts. In DIS Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '22) (June 13-June 17, 2022). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Eoin M Kenny, Courtney Ford, Molly Quinn, and Mark T Keane. 2021. Explaining black-box classifiers using post-hoc explanations-by-example: The effect of explanations and error-rates in XAI user studies. Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 294 (2021), 103459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Sunnie SY Kim, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Olga Russakovsky, Ruth Fong, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2023. " Help Me Help the AI": Understanding How Explainability Can Support Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Hong Shen, Jisoo Geum, Nev Jones, Jason I Hong, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2023. Understanding Frontline Workers' and Unhoused Individuals' Perspectives on AI Used in Homeless Services. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. James A. Landay and Brad A. Myers. 1996. Interactive Sketching for the Early Stages of User Interface Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 43--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory Framework for Algorithmic Governance. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , Vol. 3, CSCW, Article 181 (Nov. 2019), bibinfonumpages35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359283Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Taylor Lundy, Alexander Wei, Hu Fu, Scott Duke Kominers, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2019. Allocation for social good: auditing mechanisms for utility maximization. In ACM EC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Vahideh Manshadi and Scott Rodilitz. 2020. Online Policies for Efficient Volunteer Crowdsourcing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08474 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Divya Jayakumar Nair, Hanna Grzybowska, David Rey, and Vinayak Dixit. 2016. Food rescue and delivery: Heuristic algorithm for periodic unpaired pickup and delivery vehicle routing problem. Transportation Research Record , Vol. 2548, 1 (2016), 81--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Climate Data Online. 2024. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arxiv: 2303.08774 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jennifer Pierre, Roderic Crooks, Morgan Currie, Britt Paris, and Irene Pasquetto. 2021. Getting Ourselves Together: Data-centered participatory design research & epistemic burden. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Canice Prendergast. 2016. The Allocation of Food to Food Banks. EAI Endorsed Trans. Serious Games , Vol. 3, 10 (2016), e4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 412 Food Rescue. 2023. 2022 Impact Report. https://412foodrescue.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/412-Food-Rescue_2022-Impact-Report_Final.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. " Why should i trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 1135--1144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Hong Shen, Leijie Wang, Wesley H Deng, Ciell Brusse, Ronald Velgersdijk, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. The model card authoring toolkit: Toward community-centered, deliberation-driven AI design. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 440--451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Zheyuan Ryan Shi, Leah Lizarondo, and Fei Fang. 2021. A recommender system for crowdsourcing food rescue platforms. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 857--865.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Zheyuan Ryan Shi, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Rayid Ghani, and Fei Fang. 2022. Bandit Data-Driven Optimization for Crowdsourcing Food Rescue Platforms. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36. 12154--12162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Khai N Truong, Gillian R Hayes, and Gregory D Abowd. 2006. Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems. 12--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jesse Vig, Shilad Sen, and John Riedl. 2009. Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. 47--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Chao Wang and Pengcheng An. 2021. Explainability via Interactivity? Supporting Nonexperts' Sensemaking of pre-trained CNN by Interacting with Their Daily Surroundings. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 274--279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Danding Wang, Qian Yang, Ashraf Abdul, and Brian Y Lim. 2019. Designing theory-driven user-centric explainable AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Sue Wilkinson. 1998. Focus group methodology: a review. International journal of social research methodology, Vol. 1, 3 (1998), 181--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Predicting and Presenting Task Difficulty for Crowdsourcing Food Rescue Platforms

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WWW '24: Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024
        May 2024
        4826 pages
        ISBN:9798400701719
        DOI:10.1145/3589334

        Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 13 May 2024

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)41
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)41

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader