Beyond Recommendations: From Backward to Forward AI Support of Pilots' Decision-Making Process

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08959v2
• Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:33:47 GMT
• Title: Beyond Recommendations: From Backward to Forward AI Support of Pilots' Decision-Making Process
• Authors: Zelun Tony Zhang, Sebastian S. Feger, Lucas Dullenkopf, Rulu Liao, Lukas Süsslin, Yuanting Liu, Andreas Butz,
• Abstract summary: We compare recommendation-centric support to an alternative paradigm, continuous support, in the context of diversions in aviation. We found that continuous support can support pilots' decision-making in a forward direction, allowing them to think more beyond the limits of the system.
• Score: 12.742338558480064
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI is anticipated to enhance human decision-making in high-stakes domains like aviation, but adoption is often hindered by challenges such as inappropriate reliance and poor alignment with users' decision-making. Recent research suggests that a core underlying issue is the recommendation-centric design of many AI systems, i.e., they give end-to-end recommendations and ignore the rest of the decision-making process. Alternative support paradigms are rare, and it remains unclear how the few that do exist compare to recommendation-centric support. In this work, we aimed to empirically compare recommendation-centric support to an alternative paradigm, continuous support, in the context of diversions in aviation. We conducted a mixed-methods study with 32 professional pilots in a realistic setting. To ensure the quality of our study scenarios, we conducted a focus group with four additional pilots prior to the study. We found that continuous support can support pilots' decision-making in a forward direction, allowing them to think more beyond the limits of the system and make faster decisions when combined with recommendations, though the forward support can be disrupted. Participants' statements further suggest a shift in design goal away from providing recommendations, to supporting quick information gathering. Our results show ways to design more helpful and effective AI decision support that goes beyond end-to-end recommendations.

Related papers

• Reinforcement Learning for Durable Algorithmic Recourse [49.54997446851335]
  We present a time-aware framework for algorithmic recourse, explicitly modeling how candidate populations adapt in response to recommendations.<n>We also introduce a novel reinforcement learning (RL)-based recourse algorithm that captures the evolving dynamics of the environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T09:24:12Z)
• Multi-Interest Recommendation: A Survey [67.28277752101006]
  Multi-interest recommendation addresses the challenge of extracting multiple interest representations from users' historical interactions.<n>It has drawn broad interest in recommendation research.<n>We systematically review the progress, solutions, challenges, and future directions of multi-interest recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T09:05:32Z)
• AI, Help Me Think$\unicode{x2014}$but for Myself: Assisting People in Complex Decision-Making by Providing Different Kinds of Cognitive Support [9.903362030444166]
  We explore an alternative interaction model in which the AI outputs build upon users' own decision-making rationales. We compare this approach, which we call ExtendAI, with a recommendation-based AI. We found that the AIs had different impacts, with ExtendAI integrating better into the decision-making process and people's own thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T10:48:17Z)
• Reason4Rec: Large Language Models for Recommendation with Deliberative User Preference Alignment [69.11529841118671]
  We propose a new Deliberative Recommendation task, which incorporates explicit reasoning about user preferences as an additional alignment goal. We then introduce the Reasoning-powered Recommender framework for deliberative user preference alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T07:17:54Z)
• An Empirical Examination of the Evaluative AI Framework [0.0]
  This study empirically examines the "Evaluative AI" framework, which aims to enhance the decision-making process for AI users. Rather than offering direct recommendations, this framework presents users pro and con evidence for hypotheses to support more informed decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T13:03:49Z)
• 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)
• From Evidence to Decision: Exploring Evaluative AI [6.460500772980468]
  We propose an implementation of Evaluative AI by extending the Weight of Evidence framework.<n>We demonstrate the application of the new decision-support approach in two domains: housing price prediction and skin cancer diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T10:28:24Z)
• Optimising Human-AI Collaboration by Learning Convincing Explanations [62.81395661556852]
  We propose a method for a collaborative system that remains safe by having a human making decisions. Ardent enables efficient and effective decision-making by adapting to individual preferences for explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T16:00:16Z)
• 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)
• Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies [56.949897454209186]
  $texttModiste$ is an interactive tool to learn personalized decision support policies. We find that personalized policies outperform offline policies, and, in the cost-aware setting, reduce the incurred cost with minimal degradation to performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T17:53:34Z)
• Explainable AI is Dead, Long Live Explainable AI! Hypothesis-driven decision support [4.452019519213712]
  We argue for a paradigm shift from the current model of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) In early decision support systems, we assumed that we could give people recommendations and that they would consider them, and then follow them when required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T01:33:25Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Towards Explainable Scientific Venue Recommendations [0.09668407688201358]
  We propose an unsophisticated method that advances the state-of-the-art in this area. First, we enhance the interpretability of recommendations through non-negative matrix factorization based topic models. Second, we surprisingly can obtain competitive recommendation performance while using simpler learning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-21T10:25:26Z)
• Dealing with Expert Bias in Collective Decision-Making [4.588028371034406]
  We propose a new algorithmic approach based on contextual multi-armed bandit problems (CMAB) to identify and counteract biased expertises. Our novel CMAB-inspired approach achieves a higher final performance and does so while converging more rapidly than previous adaptive algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T10:17:37Z)

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.