paint-brush
Researchers Discover How Flawed Labels Derail AI’s On-Screen Navigation Skillsby@fewshot

Researchers Discover How Flawed Labels Derail AI’s On-Screen Navigation Skills

tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Researchers at Microsoft and University of California San Diego have developed an AI model capable of navigating your smartphone screen.
featured image - Researchers Discover How Flawed Labels Derail AI’s On-Screen Navigation Skills
The FewShot Prompting Publication  HackerNoon profile picture

Authors:

(1) An Yan, UC San Diego, [email protected];

(2) Zhengyuan Yang, Microsoft Corporation, [email protected] with equal contributions;

(3) Wanrong Zhu, UC Santa Barbara, [email protected];

(4) Kevin Lin, Microsoft Corporation, [email protected];

(5) Linjie Li, Microsoft Corporation, [email protected];

(6) Jianfeng Wang, Microsoft Corporation, [email protected];

(7) Jianwei Yang, Microsoft Corporation, [email protected];

(8) Yiwu Zhong, University of Wisconsin-Madison, [email protected];

(9) Julian McAuley, UC San Diego, [email protected];

(10) Jianfeng Gao, Microsoft Corporation, [email protected];

(11) Zicheng Liu, Microsoft Corporation, [email protected];

(12) Lijuan Wang, Microsoft Corporation, [email protected].

Editor’s note: This is the part 11 of 13 of a paper evaluating the use of a generative AI to navigate smartphones. You can read the rest of the paper via the table of links below.


5.4 Error Analysis

We look into GPT-4V prediction traces and attempt to categorize common types of errors that cause mismatching between GPT-4V predictions and human annotations.


We notice false negative cases where the mismatches are rooted in inaccurate Set-ofMark (Yang et al., 2023b) annotation parsing or imperfect dataset annotation. In these cases, the predictions made by GPT-4V are correct after manual justification, but are classified as wrong predictions in automatic evaluation because the target regions are over-segmented (e.g., Figure 5(a)(b)), or because the ground-truth annotation only covers one of the many valid actions (e.g., Figure 6(a) has two Google Play logo; Figure 6(b) has multiple ways of accessing Google Search; and users may lookup “Setting” by direct search as GPT-4V, or by scrolling down as the human annotation in Figure 6(c)).


Figure 7 shows a few true negative examples of GPT-4V failing the designated tasks. In our zeroshot testing setup, GPT-4V is not provided with demonstrative examples to learn user action patterns. In this case, while users may scroll down or up to explore the GUI, we notice GPT-4V is more likely to perform the action of “click” on each screen, leading it to occasionally make short sighted decisions. In Figure 7(a), GPT-4V attempts to look for “improve location accuracy” in “Network&Internet” among the listed visible tabs, while the user decides to scroll down and look for more aligned setting tabs. In Figure 7(b), GPT-4V clicks on “Accept All”, which is not a button. In Figure 7(c), GPT-4V also shows a more literal understanding of the instruction and the current observation as in (b), clicking the “News” tab in the Google Search platform instead of actually visiting the news website.

Figure 5: Examples of false negatives that are caused by inaccurate parsing in Set-of-Mark annotations. “+” denotes human annotation, and “+” is GPT-4V prediction.

Figure 6: Examples of false negative scenarios that are caused by imperfections in ground truth dataset annotations. “+” denotes human annotation, “↗” shows the trace of scrolling, and “+” is GPT-4V prediction.


This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license.