The Response Shift Paradigm to Quantify Human Trust in AI Recommendations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.08979v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:02:09 GMT
• Title: The Response Shift Paradigm to Quantify Human Trust in AI Recommendations
• Authors: Ali Shafti, Victoria Derks, Hannah Kay, A. Aldo Faisal
• Abstract summary: Explainability, interpretability and how much they affect human trust in AI systems are ultimately problems of human cognition as much as machine learning. We developed and validated a general purpose Human-AI interaction paradigm which quantifies the impact of AI recommendations on human decisions. Our proof-of-principle paradigm allows one to quantitatively compare the rapidly growing set of XAI/IAI approaches in terms of their effect on the end-user.
• Score: 6.652641137999891
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Explainability, interpretability and how much they affect human trust in AI systems are ultimately problems of human cognition as much as machine learning, yet the effectiveness of AI recommendations and the trust afforded by end-users are typically not evaluated quantitatively. We developed and validated a general purpose Human-AI interaction paradigm which quantifies the impact of AI recommendations on human decisions. In our paradigm we confronted human users with quantitative prediction tasks: asking them for a first response, before confronting them with an AI's recommendations (and explanation), and then asking the human user to provide an updated final response. The difference between final and first responses constitutes the shift or sway in the human decision which we use as metric of the AI's recommendation impact on the human, representing the trust they place on the AI. We evaluated this paradigm on hundreds of users through Amazon Mechanical Turk using a multi-branched experiment confronting users with good/poor AI systems that had good, poor or no explainability. Our proof-of-principle paradigm allows one to quantitatively compare the rapidly growing set of XAI/IAI approaches in terms of their effect on the end-user and opens up the possibility of (machine) learning trust.

Related papers

• 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)
• Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show the effects of performance pressure on AI advice reliance when laypeople complete a common AI-assisted task. We find that when the stakes are high, people use AI advice more appropriately than when stakes are lower, regardless of the presence of an AI explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Do Humans Trust Advice More if it Comes from AI? An Analysis of Human-AI Interactions [8.785345834486057]
  We characterize how humans use AI suggestions relative to equivalent suggestions from a group of peer humans. We find that participants' beliefs about the human versus AI performance on a given task affects whether or not they heed the advice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-14T21:33:14Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• 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.