Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15106v5
• Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:21:51 GMT
• Title: Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions
• Authors: Jessica Hullman, Alex Kale, Jason Hartline,
• Abstract summary: We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the utility-maximizing decision. As a demonstration, we evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve these criteria.
• Score: 18.27590643693167
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: How well people use information displays to make decisions is of primary interest in human-centered AI, model explainability, data visualization, and related areas. However, what constitutes a decision problem, and what is required for a study to establish that human decisions could be improved remain open to speculation. We propose a widely applicable definition of a decision problem synthesized from statistical decision theory and information economics as a standard for establishing when human decisions can be improved in HCI. We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the utility-maximizing decision. As a demonstration, we evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve these criteria. We find that only 10 (26\%) of 39 studies that claim to identify biased behavior present participants with sufficient information to characterize their behavior as deviating from good decision-making in at least one treatment condition. We motivate the value of studying well-defined decision problems by describing a characterization of performance losses they allow us to conceive. In contrast, the ambiguities of a poorly communicated decision problem preclude normative interpretation. We conclude with recommendations for practice.

Related papers

• Does AI help humans make better decisions? A statistical evaluation framework for experimental and observational studies [0.43981305860983716]
  We show how to compare the performance of three alternative decision-making systems--human-alone, human-with-AI, and AI-alone. We find that the risk assessment recommendations do not improve the classification accuracy of a judge's decision to impose cash bail.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T01:04:52Z)
• A Decision Theoretic Framework for Measuring AI Reliance [23.353778024330165]
  Humans frequently make decisions with the aid of artificially intelligent (AI) systems. Researchers have identified ensuring that a human has appropriate reliance on an AI as a critical component of achieving complementary performance. We propose a formal definition of reliance, based on statistical decision theory, which separates the concepts of reliance as the probability the decision-maker follows the AI's recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-27T09:13:09Z)
• Explaining by Imitating: Understanding Decisions by Interpretable Policy Learning [72.80902932543474]
  Understanding human behavior from observed data is critical for transparency and accountability in decision-making. Consider real-world settings such as healthcare, in which modeling a decision-maker's policy is challenging. We propose a data-driven representation of decision-making behavior that inheres transparency by design, accommodates partial observability, and operates completely offline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T13:06:14Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Explainability's Gain is Optimality's Loss? -- How Explanations Bias Decision-making [0.0]
  Explanations help to facilitate communication between the algorithm and the human decision-maker. Feature-based explanations' semantics of causal models induce leakage from the decision-maker's prior beliefs. Such differences can lead to sub-optimal and biased decision outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-17T11:43:42Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions [3.4069627091757178]
  We show that the inclusion of a biased human decision-maker can revert common relationships between the structure of the algorithm and the qualities of resulting decisions. In the lab experiment, we demonstrate how predictions informed by gender-specific information can reduce average gender disparities in decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-28T17:24:45Z)
• Learning the Preferences of Uncertain Humans with Inverse Decision Theory [10.926992035470372]
  We study the setting of inverse decision theory (IDT), a framework where a human is observed making non-sequential binary decisions under uncertainty. In IDT, the human's preferences are conveyed through their loss function, which expresses a tradeoff between different types of mistakes. We show that it is actually easier to identify preferences when the decision problem is more uncertain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-19T00:11:13Z)
• Indecision Modeling [50.00689136829134]
  It is important that AI systems act in ways which align with human values. People are often indecisive, and especially so when their decision has moral implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-15T18:32:37Z)
• "A cold, technical decision-maker": Can AI provide explainability, negotiability, and humanity? [47.36687555570123]
  We present results of a qualitative study of algorithmic decision-making, comprised of five workshops conducted with a total of 60 participants. We discuss participants' consideration of humanity in decision-making, and introduce the concept of 'negotiability,' the ability to go beyond formal criteria and work flexibly around the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-01T22:36:54Z)
• Inverse Active Sensing: Modeling and Understanding Timely Decision-Making [111.07204912245841]
  We develop a framework for the general setting of evidence-based decision-making under endogenous, context-dependent time pressure. We demonstrate how it enables modeling intuitive notions of surprise, suspense, and optimality in decision strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-25T02:30:45Z)

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.