Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Support

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.02310v1
• Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:10:49 GMT
• Title: Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Support
• Authors: Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Haiyi Zhu, Kenneth Holstein
• Abstract summary: We present findings from a series of interviews at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. We observe how workers' reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS's capabilities and limitations relative to their own, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives.
• Score: 37.03030554731032
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers' experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. Overall, we observe how workers' reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS's capabilities and limitations relative to their own, (3) organizational pressures and incentives around the use of the ADS, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives. Drawing upon these findings, we discuss design implications towards supporting more effective human-AI decision-making.

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)
• Studying Up Public Sector AI: How Networks of Power Relations Shape Agency Decisions Around AI Design and Use [29.52245155918532]
  We study public sector AI around those who have the power and responsibility to make decisions about the role that AI tools will play in their agency. Our findings shed light on how infrastructural, legal, and social factors create barriers and disincentives to the involvement of a broader range of stakeholders in decisions about AI design and adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T02:31:26Z)
• 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)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  Particip-AI is a framework to gather current and future AI use cases and their harms and benefits from non-expert public. We gather responses from 295 demographically diverse participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• 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)
• Does More Advice Help? The Effects of Second Opinions in AI-Assisted Decision Making [45.20615051119694]
  We explore whether and how the provision of second opinions may affect decision-makers' behavior and performance in AI-assisted decision-making. We find that if both the AI model's decision recommendation and a second opinion are always presented together, decision-makers reduce their over-reliance on AI. If decision-makers have the control to decide when to solicit a peer's second opinion, we find that their active solicitations of second opinions have the potential to mitigate over-reliance on AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T12:19:01Z)
• Training Towards Critical Use: Learning to Situate AI Predictions Relative to Human Knowledge [22.21959942886099]
  We introduce a process-oriented notion of appropriate reliance called critical use that centers the human's ability to situate AI predictions against knowledge that is uniquely available to them but unavailable to the AI model. We conduct a randomized online experiment in a complex social decision-making setting: child maltreatment screening. We find that, by providing participants with accelerated, low-stakes opportunities to practice AI-assisted decision-making, novices came to exhibit patterns of disagreement with AI that resemble those of experienced workers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T01:54:31Z)
• Intelligent Decision Assistance Versus Automated Decision-Making: Enhancing Knowledge Work Through Explainable Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  We propose a new class of DSS, namely Intelligent Decision Assistance (IDA) IDA supports knowledge workers without influencing them through automated decision-making. Specifically, we propose to use techniques of Explainable AI (XAI) while withholding concrete AI recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-28T15:57:21Z)
• Perceptions of Fairness and Trustworthiness Based on Explanations in Human vs. Automated Decision-Making [0.0]
  Automated decision systems (ADS) have become ubiquitous in many high-stakes domains. We conduct an online study with 200 participants to examine people's perceptions of fairness and trustworthiness towards ADS. We find that people perceive ADS as fairer than human decision-makers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T09:14:15Z)

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.