Learning to Make Adherence-Aware Advice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.00817v3
• Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 01:56:13 GMT
• Title: Learning to Make Adherence-Aware Advice
• Authors: Guanting Chen, Xiaocheng Li, Chunlin Sun, Hanzhao Wang,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a sequential decision-making model that takes into account the human's adherence level. We provide learning algorithms that learn the optimal advice policy and make advice only at critical time stamps.
• Score: 8.419688203654948
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) systems play an increasingly prominent role in human decision-making, challenges surface in the realm of human-AI interactions. One challenge arises from the suboptimal AI policies due to the inadequate consideration of humans disregarding AI recommendations, as well as the need for AI to provide advice selectively when it is most pertinent. This paper presents a sequential decision-making model that (i) takes into account the human's adherence level (the probability that the human follows/rejects machine advice) and (ii) incorporates a defer option so that the machine can temporarily refrain from making advice. We provide learning algorithms that learn the optimal advice policy and make advice only at critical time stamps. Compared to problem-agnostic reinforcement learning algorithms, our specialized learning algorithms not only enjoy better theoretical convergence properties but also show strong empirical performance.

Related papers

• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We argue that shortcomings stem from one overarching failure: AI systems lack wisdom. While AI research has focused on task-level strategies, metacognition is underdeveloped in AI systems. We propose that integrating metacognitive capabilities into AI systems is crucial for enhancing their robustness, explainability, cooperation, and safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Towards Effective Human-AI Decision-Making: The Role of Human Learning in Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice [3.595471754135419]
  We show the relationship between learning and appropriate reliance in an experiment with 100 participants. This work provides fundamental concepts for analyzing reliance and derives implications for the effective design of human-AI decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T14:51:53Z)
• 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)
• Learning When to Advise Human Decision Makers [12.47847261193524]
  We propose a novel design of AI systems in which the algorithm interacts with the human user in a two-sided manner. The results of a large-scale experiment show that our advising approach manages to provide advice at times of need.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-27T17:52:13Z)
• Doubting AI Predictions: Influence-Driven Second Opinion Recommendation [92.30805227803688]
  We propose a way to augment human-AI collaboration by building on a common organizational practice: identifying experts who are likely to provide complementary opinions. The proposed approach aims to leverage productive disagreement by identifying whether some experts are likely to disagree with an algorithmic assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T20:35:07Z)
• Should I Follow AI-based Advice? Measuring Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making [0.0]
  We aim to enable humans not to rely on AI advice blindly but rather to distinguish its quality and act upon it to make better decisions. Current research lacks a metric for appropriate reliance (AR) on AI advice on a case-by-case basis. We propose to view AR as a two-dimensional construct that measures the ability to discriminate advice quality and behave accordingly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-14T12:18:51Z)
• Explainable Artificial Intelligence Approaches: A Survey [0.22940141855172028]
  Lack of explainability of a decision from an Artificial Intelligence based "black box" system/model is a key stumbling block for adopting AI in high stakes applications. We demonstrate popular Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods with a mutual case study/task. We analyze for competitive advantages from multiple perspectives. We recommend paths towards responsible or human-centered AI using XAI as a medium.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-23T06:15:34Z)
• 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.