Learning To Guide Human Decision Makers With Vision-Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16501v2
• Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 21:46:45 GMT
• Title: Learning To Guide Human Decision Makers With Vision-Language Models
• Authors: Debodeep Banerjee, Stefano Teso, Burcu Sayin, Andrea Passerini,
• Abstract summary: There is increasing interest in developing AIs for assisting human decision-making in high-stakes tasks, such as medical diagnosis. We introduce learning to guide (LTG), an alternative framework in which - rather than taking control from the human expert - the machine provides guidance. In order to ensure guidance is interpretable, we develop SLOG, an approach for turning any vision-language model into a capable generator of textual guidance.
• Score: 17.957952996809716
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: There is increasing interest in developing AIs for assisting human decision-making in high-stakes tasks, such as medical diagnosis, for the purpose of improving decision quality and reducing cognitive strain. Mainstream approaches team up an expert with a machine learning model to which safer decisions are offloaded, thus letting the former focus on cases that demand their attention. his separation of responsibilities setup, however, is inadequate for high-stakes scenarios. On the one hand, the expert may end up over-relying on the machine's decisions due to anchoring bias, thus losing the human oversight that is increasingly being required by regulatory agencies to ensure trustworthy AI. On the other hand, the expert is left entirely unassisted on the (typically hardest) decisions on which the model abstained. As a remedy, we introduce learning to guide (LTG), an alternative framework in which - rather than taking control from the human expert - the machine provides guidance useful for decision making, and the human is entirely responsible for coming up with a decision. In order to ensure guidance is interpretable} and task-specific, we develop SLOG, an approach for turning any vision-language model into a capable generator of textual guidance by leveraging a modicum of human feedback. Our empirical evaluation highlights the promise of \method on a challenging, real-world medical diagnosis task.

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 to Guide Human Experts via Personalized Large Language Models [23.7625973884849]
  In learning to defer, a predictor identifies risky decisions and defers them to a human expert. In learning to guide, the machine provides guidance useful to guide decision-making, and the human is entirely responsible for coming up with a decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-11T09:36:33Z)
• Predicting and Understanding Human Action Decisions during Skillful Joint-Action via Machine Learning and Explainable-AI [1.3381749415517021]
  This study uses supervised machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence to model, predict and understand human decision-making. Long short-term memory networks were trained to predict the target selection decisions of expert and novice actors completing a dyadic herding task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-06T16:54:43Z)
• 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)
• A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores [85.12096045419686]
  We study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. We show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-19T07:27:32Z)
• 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.