Engaging with AI: How Interface Design Shapes Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16627v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 02:03:00 GMT
• Title: Engaging with AI: How Interface Design Shapes Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making
• Authors: Zichen Chen, Yunhao Luo, Misha Sra,
• Abstract summary: We examine how various decision-support mechanisms impact user engagement, trust, and human-AI collaborative task performance. Our findings reveal that mechanisms like AI confidence levels, text explanations, and performance visualizations enhanced human-AI collaborative task performance.
• Score: 8.948482790298645
• License:
• Abstract: As reliance on AI systems for decision-making grows, it becomes critical to ensure that human users can appropriately balance trust in AI suggestions with their own judgment, especially in high-stakes domains like healthcare. However, human + AI teams have been shown to perform worse than AI alone, with evidence indicating automation bias as the reason for poorer performance, particularly because humans tend to follow AI's recommendations even when they are incorrect. In many existing human + AI systems, decision-making support is typically provided in the form of text explanations (XAI) to help users understand the AI's reasoning. Since human decision-making often relies on System 1 thinking, users may ignore or insufficiently engage with the explanations, leading to poor decision-making. Previous research suggests that there is a need for new approaches that encourage users to engage with the explanations and one proposed method is the use of cognitive forcing functions (CFFs). In this work, we examine how various decision-support mechanisms impact user engagement, trust, and human-AI collaborative task performance in a diabetes management decision-making scenario. In a controlled experiment with 108 participants, we evaluated the effects of six decision-support mechanisms split into two categories of explanations (text, visual) and four CFFs. Our findings reveal that mechanisms like AI confidence levels, text explanations, and performance visualizations enhanced human-AI collaborative task performance, and improved trust when AI reasoning clues were provided. Mechanisms like human feedback and AI-driven questions encouraged deeper reflection but often reduced task performance by increasing cognitive effort, which in turn affected trust. Simple mechanisms like visual explanations had little effect on trust, highlighting the importance of striking a balance in CFF and XAI design.

Related papers

• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  Recent advances in AI have resulted in technology that can support humans in scientific discovery and decision support but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals. The responsible use of AI increasingly shows the need for human-AI teaming. A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show the effects of performance pressure on AI advice reliance when laypeople complete a common AI-assisted task. We find that when the stakes are high, people use AI advice more appropriately than when stakes are lower, regardless of the presence of an AI explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Knowing About Knowing: An Illusion of Human Competence Can Hinder Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems [13.484359389266864]
  This paper addresses whether the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) can hinder appropriate reliance on AI systems. DKE is a metacognitive bias due to which less-competent individuals overestimate their own skill and performance. We found that participants who overestimate their performance tend to exhibit under-reliance on AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-25T14:26:10Z)
• Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations [44.01143305912054]
  We study how decision-makers' intuition affects their use of AI predictions and explanations. Our results identify three types of intuition involved in reasoning about AI predictions and explanations. We use these pathways to explain why feature-based explanations did not improve participants' decision outcomes and increased their overreliance on AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T01:33:50Z)
• Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behavior [14.904401331154062]
  People work with AI systems to improve their decision making, but often under- or over-rely on AI predictions and perform worse than they would have unassisted. To help people appropriately rely on AI aids, we propose showing them behavior descriptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-06T00:33:08Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making [4.877174544937129]
  People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-19T00:38:53Z)
• 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.