ADESSE: Advice Explanations in Complex Repeated Decision-Making Environments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20705v2
• Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 09:49:54 GMT
• Title: ADESSE: Advice Explanations in Complex Repeated Decision-Making Environments
• Authors: Sören Schleibaum, Lu Feng, Sarit Kraus, Jörg P. Müller,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 14.105935964906976
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In the evolving landscape of human-centered AI, fostering a synergistic relationship between humans and AI agents in decision-making processes stands as a paramount challenge. This work considers a problem setup where an intelligent agent comprising a neural network-based prediction component and a deep reinforcement learning component provides advice to a human decision-maker in complex repeated decision-making environments. Whether the human decision-maker would follow the agent's advice depends on their beliefs and trust in the agent and on their understanding of the advice itself. To this end, we developed an approach named ADESSE to generate explanations about the adviser agent to improve human trust and decision-making. Computational experiments on a range of environments with varying model sizes demonstrate the applicability and scalability of ADESSE. Furthermore, an interactive game-based user study shows that participants were significantly more satisfied, achieved a higher reward in the game, and took less time to select an action when presented with explanations generated by ADESSE. These findings illuminate the critical role of tailored, human-centered explanations in AI-assisted decision-making.

Related papers

• Towards Objective and Unbiased Decision Assessments with LLM-Enhanced Hierarchical Attention Networks [6.520709313101523]
  This work investigates cognitive bias identification in high-stake decision making process by human experts. We propose bias-aware AI-augmented workflow that surpass human judgment. In our experiments, both the proposed model and the agentic workflow significantly improves on both human judgment and alternative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T10:42:11Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Negotiating the Shared Agency between Humans & AI in the Recommender System [1.4249472316161877]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-23T19:23:08Z)
• 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)
• ChoiceMates: Supporting Unfamiliar Online Decision-Making with Multi-Agent Conversational Interactions [58.71970923420007]
  We present ChoiceMates, a system that enables conversations with a dynamic set of LLM-powered agents. Agents, as opinionated personas, flexibly join the conversation, not only providing responses but also conversing among themselves to elicit each agent's preferences. Our study (n=36) comparing ChoiceMates to conventional web search and single-agent showed that ChoiceMates was more helpful in discovering, diving deeper, and managing information compared to Web with higher confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T16:49:39Z)
• Rational Decision-Making Agent with Internalized Utility Judgment [91.80700126895927]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable advancements and have attracted significant efforts to develop LLMs into agents capable of executing intricate multi-step decision-making tasks beyond traditional NLP applications. This paper proposes RadAgent, which fosters the development of its rationality through an iterative framework involving Experience Exploration and Utility Learning. Experimental results on the ToolBench dataset demonstrate RadAgent's superiority over baselines, achieving over 10% improvement in Pass Rate on diverse tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-24T03:11:45Z)
• 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)
• Modeling Human-AI Team Decision Making [14.368767225297585]
  We present a sequence of intellective issues to a set of human groups aided by imperfect AI agents. A group's goal was to appraise the relative expertise of the group's members and its available AI agents. We show the value of socio-cognitive constructs of prospect theory, influence dynamics, and Bayesian learning in predicting the behavior of human-AI groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-08T04:23:23Z)

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.