The Value of Information in Human-AI Decision-making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06152v4
• Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 18:44:35 GMT
• Title: The Value of Information in Human-AI Decision-making
• Authors: Ziyang Guo, Yifan Wu, Jason Hartline, Jessica Hullman,
• Abstract summary: We contribute a decision-theoretic framework for characterizing the value of information.<n>We present a novel explanation technique that adapts SHAP explanations to highlight human-complementing information.<n>We show that our measure of complementary information can be used to identify which AI model will best complement human decisions.
• Score: 23.353778024330165
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multiple agents -- including humans and AI models -- are increasingly combined to make decisions with the expectation of achieving complementary performance, where the decisions they make together outperform those made individually. However, knowing how to improve the performance of collaborating agents is often difficult without knowing more about what particular information and strategies each agent employs. With a focus on human-AI pairings, we contribute a decision-theoretic framework for characterizing the value of information -- and consequently, opportunities for agents to better exploit available information -- in AI-assisted decision workflows. We present a novel explanation technique (ILIV-SHAP) that adapts SHAP explanations to highlight human-complementing information. We validate the effectiveness of the framework and ILIV-SHAP through a study of human-AI decision-making. We show that our measure of complementary information can be used to identify which AI model will best complement human decisions. We also find that presenting ILIV-SHAP with AI predictions leads to reliably greater reductions in error over non-AI assisted decisions more than vanilla SHAP.

Related papers

• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• Agentic Knowledgeable Self-awareness [79.25908923383776]
  KnowSelf is a data-centric approach that applies agents with knowledgeable self-awareness like humans. Our experiments demonstrate that KnowSelf can outperform various strong baselines on different tasks and models with minimal use of external knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T16:03:38Z)
• The Effect of Explainable AI-based Decision Support on Human Task Performance: A Meta-Analysis [0.0]
  We conduct a meta-analysis to explore how XAI affects human performance in classification tasks. Our results show an improvement in task performance through XAI-based decision support. The analysis reveals that the studies' risk of bias moderates the effect of explanations in AI, while the explanation type appears to play only a negligible role.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-22T10:38:43Z)
• Unexploited Information Value in Human-AI Collaboration [23.353778024330165]
  How to improve performance of a human-AI team is often not clear without knowing what particular information and strategies each agent employs.<n>We propose a model based in statistical decision theory to analyze human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T01:34:45Z)
• Utilizing Human Behavior Modeling to Manipulate Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision Making: The Good, the Bad, and the Scary [19.884253335528317]
  Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions. Providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-02T18:33:28Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  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)
• 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)
• Human Delegation Behavior in Human-AI Collaboration: The Effect of Contextual Information [7.475784495279183]
  One promising approach to leverage existing complementary capabilities is allowing humans to delegate individual instances of decision tasks to AI.<n>We conduct a behavioral study to explore the effects of providing contextual information to support this delegation decision.<n>Our findings reveal that access to contextual information significantly improves human-AI team performance in delegation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T18:59:47Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• From DDMs to DNNs: Using process data and models of decision-making to improve human-AI interactions [1.1510009152620668]
  We argue that artificial intelligence (AI) research would benefit from a stronger focus on insights about how decisions emerge over time. First, we introduce a highly established computational framework that assumes decisions to emerge from the noisy accumulation of evidence. Next, we discuss to what extent current approaches in multi-agent AI do or do not incorporate process data and models of decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T11:27:22Z)
• 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)
• Assisting Human Decisions in Document Matching [52.79491990823573]
  We devise a proxy matching task that allows us to evaluate which kinds of assistive information improve decision makers' performance. We find that providing black-box model explanations reduces users' accuracy on the matching task. On the other hand, custom methods that are designed to closely attend to some task-specific desiderata are found to be effective in improving user performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T17:45:20Z)
• Adaptive cognitive fit: Artificial intelligence augmented management of information facets and representations [62.997667081978825]
  Explosive growth in big data technologies and artificial intelligence [AI] applications have led to increasing pervasiveness of information facets. Information facets, such as equivocality and veracity, can dominate and significantly influence human perceptions of information. We suggest that artificially intelligent technologies that can adapt information representations to overcome cognitive limitations are necessary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T02:47:25Z)
• A general framework for scientifically inspired explanations in AI [76.48625630211943]
  We instantiate the concept of structure of scientific explanation as the theoretical underpinning for a general framework in which explanations for AI systems can be implemented. This framework aims to provide the tools to build a "mental-model" of any AI system so that the interaction with the user can provide information on demand and be closer to the nature of human-made explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T10:32:21Z)
• 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.