Human-Centric Decision Support Tools: Insights from Real-World Design and Implementation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.05796v2
• Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:09:36 GMT
• Title: Human-Centric Decision Support Tools: Insights from Real-World Design and Implementation
• Authors: Narges Ahani (1) and Andrew C. Trapp (1 and 2) ((1) Data Science Program, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, (2) WPI Business School, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA)
• Abstract summary: Decision support tools enable improved decision-making for challenging decision problems. Their intentional design is a critical component of the value they create. We advocate for an innovative, and perhaps overlooked, approach to designing effective decision support tools.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Decision support tools enable improved decision-making for challenging decision problems by empowering stakeholders to process, analyze, visualize, and otherwise make sense of a variety of key factors. Their intentional design is a critical component of the value they create. All decision-support tools share in common that there is a complex decision problem to be solved for which decision-support is useful, and moreover, that appropriate analytics expertise is available to produce solutions to the problem setting at hand. When well-designed, decision support tools reduce friction and increase efficiency in providing support for the decision-making process, thereby improving the ability of decision-makers to make quality decisions. On the other hand, the presence of overwhelming, superfluous, insufficient, or ill-fitting information and software features can have an adverse effect on the decision-making process and, consequently, outcomes. We advocate for an innovative, and perhaps overlooked, approach to designing effective decision support tools: genuinely listening to the project stakeholders, to ascertain and appreciate their real needs and perspectives. By prioritizing stakeholder needs, a foundation of mutual trust and understanding is established with the design team. We maintain this trust is critical to eventual tool acceptance and adoption, and its absence jeopardizes the future use of the tool, which would leave its analytical insights for naught. We discuss examples across multiple contexts to underscore our collective experience, highlight lessons learned, and present recommended practices to improve the design and eventual adoption of decision dupport tools.

Related papers

• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Rational Decision-Making Agent with Internalized Utility Judgment [91.80700126895927]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable advancements and have attracted significant efforts to develop LLMs into agents capable of executing intricate multi-step decision-making tasks beyond traditional NLP applications. This paper proposes RadAgent, which fosters the development of its rationality through an iterative framework involving Experience Exploration and Utility Learning. Experimental results on the ToolBench dataset demonstrate RadAgent's superiority over baselines, achieving over 10% improvement in Pass Rate on diverse tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-24T03:11:45Z)
• Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies [56.949897454209186]
  $texttModiste$ is an interactive tool to learn personalized decision support policies. We find that personalized policies outperform offline policies, and, in the cost-aware setting, reduce the incurred cost with minimal degradation to performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T17:53:34Z)
• On solving decision and risk management problems subject to uncertainty [91.3755431537592]
  Uncertainty is a pervasive challenge in decision and risk management. This paper develops a systematic understanding of such strategies, determine their range of application, and develop a framework to better employ them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T19:16:23Z)
• Explainability's Gain is Optimality's Loss? -- How Explanations Bias Decision-making [0.0]
  Explanations help to facilitate communication between the algorithm and the human decision-maker. Feature-based explanations' semantics of causal models induce leakage from the decision-maker's prior beliefs. Such differences can lead to sub-optimal and biased decision outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-17T11:43:42Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects [24.615500469071183]
  We focus on algorithmic recourse, which is concerned with providing explanations and recommendations to individuals who are unfavourably treated by automated decision-making systems. We perform an extensive literature review, and align the efforts of many authors by presenting unified definitions, formulations, and solutions to recourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T15:15:34Z)
• Inverse Active Sensing: Modeling and Understanding Timely Decision-Making [111.07204912245841]
  We develop a framework for the general setting of evidence-based decision-making under endogenous, context-dependent time pressure. We demonstrate how it enables modeling intuitive notions of surprise, suspense, and optimality in decision strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-25T02:30:45Z)
• Autoencoders for strategic decision support [5.922780668675565]
  We introduce and extend the use of autoencoders to provide strategically relevant granular feedback. A first experiment indicates that experts are inconsistent in their decision making, highlighting the need for strategic decision support. Our study confirms several principal weaknesses of human decision-making and stresses the importance of synergy between a model and humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-03T12:54:06Z)

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.