Instructive artificial intelligence (AI) for human training, assistance, and explainability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.01726v1
• Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 16:46:46 GMT
• Title: Instructive artificial intelligence (AI) for human training, assistance, and explainability
• Authors: Nicholas Kantack, Nina Cohen, Nathan Bos, Corey Lowman, James Everett, and Timothy Endres
• Abstract summary: We show how a neural network might instruct human trainees as an alternative to traditional approaches to explainable AI (XAI) An AI examines human actions and calculates variations on the human strategy that lead to better performance. Results will be presented on AI instruction's ability to improve human decision-making and human-AI teaming in Hanabi.
• Score: 0.24629531282150877
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We propose a novel approach to explainable AI (XAI) based on the concept of "instruction" from neural networks. In this case study, we demonstrate how a superhuman neural network might instruct human trainees as an alternative to traditional approaches to XAI. Specifically, an AI examines human actions and calculates variations on the human strategy that lead to better performance. Experiments with a JHU/APL-developed AI player for the cooperative card game Hanabi suggest this technique makes unique contributions to explainability while improving human performance. One area of focus for Instructive AI is in the significant discrepancies that can arise between a human's actual strategy and the strategy they profess to use. This inaccurate self-assessment presents a barrier for XAI, since explanations of an AI's strategy may not be properly understood or implemented by human recipients. We have developed and are testing a novel, Instructive AI approach that estimates human strategy by observing human actions. With neural networks, this allows a direct calculation of the changes in weights needed to improve the human strategy to better emulate a more successful AI. Subjected to constraints (e.g. sparsity) these weight changes can be interpreted as recommended changes to human strategy (e.g. "value A more, and value B less"). Instruction from AI such as this functions both to help humans perform better at tasks, but also to better understand, anticipate, and correct the actions of an AI. Results will be presented on AI instruction's ability to improve human decision-making and human-AI teaming in Hanabi.

Related papers

• Exploration with Principles for Diverse AI Supervision [88.61687950039662]
  Training large transformers using next-token prediction has given rise to groundbreaking advancements in AI. While this generative AI approach has produced impressive results, it heavily leans on human supervision. This strong reliance on human oversight poses a significant hurdle to the advancement of AI innovation. We propose a novel paradigm termed Exploratory AI (EAI) aimed at autonomously generating high-quality training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T07:03:39Z)
• Towards Effective Human-AI Decision-Making: The Role of Human Learning in Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice [3.595471754135419]
  We show the relationship between learning and appropriate reliance in an experiment with 100 participants. This work provides fundamental concepts for analyzing reliance and derives implications for the effective design of human-AI decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T14:51:53Z)
• Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behavior [14.904401331154062]
  People work with AI systems to improve their decision making, but often under- or over-rely on AI predictions and perform worse than they would have unassisted. To help people appropriately rely on AI aids, we propose showing them behavior descriptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-06T00:33:08Z)
• On the Effect of Information Asymmetry in Human-AI Teams [0.0]
  We focus on the existence of complementarity potential between humans and AI. Specifically, we identify information asymmetry as an essential source of complementarity potential. By conducting an online experiment, we demonstrate that humans can use such contextual information to adjust the AI's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-03T13:02:50Z)
• Best-Response Bayesian Reinforcement Learning with Bayes-adaptive POMDPs for Centaurs [22.52332536886295]
  We present a novel formulation of the interaction between the human and the AI as a sequential game. We show that in this case the AI's problem of helping bounded-rational humans make better decisions reduces to a Bayes-adaptive POMDP. We discuss ways in which the machine can learn to improve upon its own limitations as well with the help of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-03T21:00:51Z)
• Uncalibrated Models Can Improve Human-AI Collaboration [10.106324182884068]
  We show that presenting AI models as more confident than they actually are can improve human-AI performance. We first learn a model for how humans incorporate AI advice using data from thousands of human interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-12T04:51:00Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• On some Foundational Aspects of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence [52.03866242565846]
  There is no clear definition of what is meant by Human Centered Artificial Intelligence. This paper introduces the term HCAI agent to refer to any physical or software computational agent equipped with AI components. We see the notion of HCAI agent, together with its components and functions, as a way to bridge the technical and non-technical discussions on human-centered AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-29T09:58:59Z)
• The MineRL BASALT Competition on Learning from Human Feedback [58.17897225617566]
  The MineRL BASALT competition aims to spur forward research on this important class of techniques. We design a suite of four tasks in Minecraft for which we expect it will be hard to write down hardcoded reward functions. We provide a dataset of human demonstrations on each of the four tasks, as well as an imitation learning baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T12:18:17Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.