Comparing Psychometric and Behavioral Predictors of Compliance During Human-AI Interactions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.01854v1
• Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 16:56:25 GMT
• Title: Comparing Psychometric and Behavioral Predictors of Compliance During Human-AI Interactions
• Authors: Nikolos Gurney and David V. Pynadath and Ning Wang
• Abstract summary: A common hypothesis in adaptive AI research is that minor differences in people's predisposition to trust can significantly impact their likelihood of complying with recommendations from the AI. We benchmark a popular measure of this kind against behavioral predictors of compliance. This suggests a general property that individual differences in initial behavior are more predictive than differences in self-reported trust attitudes.
• Score: 5.893351309010412
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Optimization of human-AI teams hinges on the AI's ability to tailor its interaction to individual human teammates. A common hypothesis in adaptive AI research is that minor differences in people's predisposition to trust can significantly impact their likelihood of complying with recommendations from the AI. Predisposition to trust is often measured with self-report inventories that are administered before interactions. We benchmark a popular measure of this kind against behavioral predictors of compliance. We find that the inventory is a less effective predictor of compliance than the behavioral measures in datasets taken from three previous research projects. This suggests a general property that individual differences in initial behavior are more predictive than differences in self-reported trust attitudes. This result also shows a potential for easily accessible behavioral measures to provide an AI with more accurate models without the use of (often costly) survey instruments.

Related papers

• Beyond correlation: The impact of human uncertainty in measuring the effectiveness of automatic evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge [51.93909886542317]
  We show how a single aggregate correlation score can obscure differences between human behavior and automatic evaluation methods. We propose stratifying results by human label uncertainty to provide a more robust analysis of automatic evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T03:08:29Z)
• Performative Prediction on Games and Mechanism Design [69.7933059664256]
  We study a collective risk dilemma where agents decide whether to trust predictions based on past accuracy. As predictions shape collective outcomes, social welfare arises naturally as a metric of concern. We show how to achieve better trade-offs and use them for mechanism design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T16:03:44Z)
• ASPEST: Bridging the Gap Between Active Learning and Selective Prediction [56.001808843574395]
  Selective prediction aims to learn a reliable model that abstains from making predictions when uncertain. Active learning aims to lower the overall labeling effort, and hence human dependence, by querying the most informative examples. In this work, we introduce a new learning paradigm, active selective prediction, which aims to query more informative samples from the shifted target domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T23:51:07Z)
• What Should I Know? Using Meta-gradient Descent for Predictive Feature Discovery in a Single Stream of Experience [63.75363908696257]
  computational reinforcement learning seeks to construct an agent's perception of the world through predictions of future sensations. An open challenge in this line of work is determining from the infinitely many predictions that the agent could possibly make which predictions might best support decision-making. We introduce a meta-gradient descent process by which an agent learns what predictions to make, 2) the estimates for its chosen predictions, and 3) how to use those estimates to generate policies that maximize future reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-13T21:31:06Z)
• The Response Shift Paradigm to Quantify Human Trust in AI Recommendations [6.652641137999891]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-16T22:02:09Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• Assessing Human Interaction in Virtual Reality With Continually Learning Prediction Agents Based on Reinforcement Learning Algorithms: A Pilot Study [6.076137037890219]
  We investigate how the interaction between a human and a continually learning prediction agent develops as the agent develops competency. We develop a virtual reality environment and a time-based prediction task wherein learned predictions from a reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm augment human predictions. Our findings suggest that human trust of the system may be influenced by early interactions with the agent, and that trust in turn affects strategic behaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-14T22:46:44Z)
• Role of Human-AI Interaction in Selective Prediction [20.11364033416315]
  We study the impact of communicating different types of information to humans about the AI system's decision to defer. We show that it is possible to significantly boost human performance by informing the human of the decision to defer, but not revealing the prediction of the AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-13T16:03:13Z)
• ACP++: Action Co-occurrence Priors for Human-Object Interaction Detection [102.9428507180728]
  A common problem in the task of human-object interaction (HOI) detection is that numerous HOI classes have only a small number of labeled examples. We observe that there exist natural correlations and anti-correlations among human-object interactions. We present techniques to learn these priors and leverage them for more effective training, especially on rare classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T06:02:50Z)
• Improving Confidence in the Estimation of Values and Norms [3.8323580808203785]
  This paper analyses to what extent an AA is able to estimate the values and norms of a simulated human agent based on its actions in the ultimatum game. We present two methods to reduce ambiguity in profiling the SHAs: one based on search space exploration and another based on counterfactual analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-02T15:03:03Z)

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.