Modeling Human-AI Team Decision Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02759v1
• Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2022 04:23:23 GMT
• Title: Modeling Human-AI Team Decision Making
• Authors: Wei Ye, Francesco Bullo, Noah Friedkin, Ambuj K Singh
• Abstract summary: We present a sequence of intellective issues to a set of human groups aided by imperfect AI agents. A group's goal was to appraise the relative expertise of the group's members and its available AI agents. We show the value of socio-cognitive constructs of prospect theory, influence dynamics, and Bayesian learning in predicting the behavior of human-AI groups.
• Score: 14.368767225297585
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: AI and humans bring complementary skills to group deliberations. Modeling this group decision making is especially challenging when the deliberations include an element of risk and an exploration-exploitation process of appraising the capabilities of the human and AI agents. To investigate this question, we presented a sequence of intellective issues to a set of human groups aided by imperfect AI agents. A group's goal was to appraise the relative expertise of the group's members and its available AI agents, evaluate the risks associated with different actions, and maximize the overall reward by reaching consensus. We propose and empirically validate models of human-AI team decision making under such uncertain circumstances, and show the value of socio-cognitive constructs of prospect theory, influence dynamics, and Bayesian learning in predicting the behavior of human-AI groups.

Related papers

• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  Recent advances in AI have resulted in technology that can support humans in scientific discovery and decision support but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals. The responsible use of AI increasingly shows the need for human-AI teaming. A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Unexploited Information Value in Human-AI Collaboration [23.353778024330165]
  How to improve performance of a human-AI team is often not clear without knowing what particular information and strategies each agent employs. We propose a model based in statistically decision theory to analyze human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T01:34:45Z)
• Utilizing Human Behavior Modeling to Manipulate Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision Making: The Good, the Bad, and the Scary [19.884253335528317]
  Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions. Providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-02T18:33:28Z)
• ADESSE: Advice Explanations in Complex Repeated Decision-Making Environments [14.105935964906976]
  This work considers a problem setup where an intelligent agent provides advice to a human decision-maker. We develop an approach named ADESSE to generate explanations about the adviser agent to improve human trust and decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T08:59:20Z)
• Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making [47.33241893184721]
  In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole. We propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making. Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T14:34:06Z)
• Beyond Recommender: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Different AI Roles in AI-Assisted Decision Making [48.179458030691286]
  We examine three AI roles: Recommender, Analyzer, and Devil's Advocate. Our results show each role's distinct strengths and limitations in task performance, reliance appropriateness, and user experience. These insights offer valuable implications for designing AI assistants with adaptive functional roles according to different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:32:28Z)
• The Impact of Imperfect XAI on Human-AI Decision-Making [8.305869611846775]
  We evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T15:19:36Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making [46.625616262738404]
  We use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making setting. We focus specifically on anchoring bias, a bias commonly encountered in human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T22:25:41Z)
• 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.