Negotiating the Shared Agency between Humans & AI in the Recommender System

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15919v3
• Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:57:07 GMT
• Title: Negotiating the Shared Agency between Humans & AI in the Recommender System
• Authors: Mengke Wu, Weizi Liu, Yanyun Wang, Mike Yao,
• Abstract summary: Concerns about user agency have arisen due to the inherent opacity (information asymmetry) and the nature of one-way output (power asymmetry) on algorithms. We seek to understand how types of agency impact user perception and experience, and bring empirical evidence to refine the guidelines and designs for human-AI interactive systems.
• Score: 1.4249472316161877
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Smart recommendation algorithms have revolutionized information dissemination, enhancing efficiency and reshaping content delivery across various domains. However, concerns about user agency have arisen due to the inherent opacity (information asymmetry) and the nature of one-way output (power asymmetry) on algorithms. While both issues have been criticized by scholars via advocating explainable AI (XAI) and human-AI collaborative decision-making (HACD), few research evaluates their integrated effects on users, and few HACD discussions in recommender systems beyond improving and filtering the results. This study proposes an incubating idea as a missing step in HACD that allows users to control the degrees of AI-recommended content. Then, we integrate it with existing XAI to a flow prototype aimed at assessing the enhancement of user agency. We seek to understand how types of agency impact user perception and experience, and bring empirical evidence to refine the guidelines and designs for human-AI interactive systems.

Related papers

• Interactive Example-based Explanations to Improve Health Professionals' Onboarding with AI for Human-AI Collaborative Decision Making [2.964175945467257]
  A growing research explores the usage of AI explanations on user's decision phases for human-AI collaborative decision-making. Previous studies found the issues of overreliance on wrong' AI outputs. We propose interactive example-based explanations to improve health professionals' offboarding with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T07:20:09Z)
• To Err Is AI! Debugging as an Intervention to Facilitate Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems [11.690126756498223]
  Vision for optimal human-AI collaboration requires 'appropriate reliance' of humans on AI systems. In practice, the performance disparity of machine learning models on out-of-distribution data makes dataset-specific performance feedback unreliable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T09:43:27Z)
• 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)
• ADESSE: Advice Explanations in Complex Repeated Decision-Making Environments [14.105935964906976]
  This work considers a problem setup where an intelligent agent provides advice to a human decision-maker. We develop an approach named ADESSE to generate explanations about the adviser agent to improve human trust and decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T08:59:20Z)
• 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)
• How much informative is your XAI? A decision-making assessment task to objectively measure the goodness of explanations [53.01494092422942]
  The number and complexity of personalised and user-centred approaches to XAI have rapidly grown in recent years. It emerged that user-centred approaches to XAI positively affect the interaction between users and systems. We propose an assessment task to objectively and quantitatively measure the goodness of XAI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T15:49:39Z)
• The Impact of Imperfect XAI on Human-AI Decision-Making [8.305869611846775]
  We evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T15:19:36Z)
• Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making [10.890854857970488]
  Many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user's domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more. Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled. Our results show that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid user decision making, factors such as users' baseline performance relative to the AI and complementary tuning of AI error types significantly impact overall team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T21:39:58Z)
• Connecting Algorithmic Research and Usage Contexts: A Perspective of Contextualized Evaluation for Explainable AI [65.44737844681256]
  A lack of consensus on how to evaluate explainable AI (XAI) hinders the advancement of the field. We argue that one way to close the gap is to develop evaluation methods that account for different user requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T05:17:33Z)
• 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)

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.