Human-AI Collaboration: Trade-offs Between Performance and Preferences
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00248v1
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 23:50:14 GMT
- Title: Human-AI Collaboration: Trade-offs Between Performance and Preferences
- Authors: Lukas William Mayer, Sheer Karny, Jackie Ayoub, Miao Song, Danyang Tian, Ehsan Moradi-Pari, Mark Steyvers,
- Abstract summary: We show that agents who are more considerate of human actions are preferred over purely performance-maximizing agents.<n>We find evidence for inequality-aversion effects being a driver of human choices, suggesting that people prefer collaborative agents which allow them to meaningfully contribute to the team.
- Score: 5.172575113585139
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Despite the growing interest in collaborative AI, designing systems that seamlessly integrate human input remains a major challenge. In this study, we developed a task to systematically examine human preferences for collaborative agents. We created and evaluated five collaborative AI agents with strategies that differ in the manner and degree they adapt to human actions. Participants interacted with a subset of these agents, evaluated their perceived traits, and selected their preferred agent. We used a Bayesian model to understand how agents' strategies influence the Human-AI team performance, AI's perceived traits, and the factors shaping human-preferences in pairwise agent comparisons. Our results show that agents who are more considerate of human actions are preferred over purely performance-maximizing agents. Moreover, we show that such human-centric design can improve the likability of AI collaborators without reducing performance. We find evidence for inequality-aversion effects being a driver of human choices, suggesting that people prefer collaborative agents which allow them to meaningfully contribute to the team. Taken together, these findings demonstrate how collaboration with AI can benefit from development efforts which include both subjective and objective metrics.
Related papers
- Experimental Exploration: Investigating Cooperative Interaction Behavior Between Humans and Large Language Model Agents [11.080802144327176]
This study investigates human cooperative behavior by engaging 30 participants in repeated Prisoner's Dilemma games.
Findings show significant differences in cooperative behavior based on the agents' purported characteristics and the interaction effect of participants' genders and purported characteristics.
The study underscores the importance of understanding human biases toward AI agents and how observed behaviors can influence future human-AI cooperation dynamics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-10T13:37:36Z) - Collaborative Gym: A Framework for Enabling and Evaluating Human-Agent Collaboration [51.452664740963066]
Collaborative Gym is a framework enabling asynchronous, tripartite interaction among agents, humans, and task environments.<n>We instantiate Co-Gym with three representative tasks in both simulated and real-world conditions.<n>Our findings reveal that collaborative agents consistently outperform their fully autonomous counterparts in task performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-20T09:21:15Z) - Mutual Theory of Mind in Human-AI Collaboration: An Empirical Study with LLM-driven AI Agents in a Real-time Shared Workspace Task [56.92961847155029]
Theory of Mind (ToM) significantly impacts human collaboration and communication as a crucial capability to understand others.
Mutual Theory of Mind (MToM) arises when AI agents with ToM capability collaborate with humans.
We find that the agent's ToM capability does not significantly impact team performance but enhances human understanding of the agent.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-13T13:19:48Z) - 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) - ProAgent: Building Proactive Cooperative Agents with Large Language
Models [89.53040828210945]
ProAgent is a novel framework that harnesses large language models to create proactive agents.
ProAgent can analyze the present state, and infer the intentions of teammates from observations.
ProAgent exhibits a high degree of modularity and interpretability, making it easily integrated into various coordination scenarios.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-22T10:36:56Z) - Human-AI Collaboration: The Effect of AI Delegation on Human Task
Performance and Task Satisfaction [0.0]
We show that task performance and task satisfaction improve through AI delegation.
We identify humans' increased levels of self-efficacy as the underlying mechanism for these improvements.
Our findings provide initial evidence that allowing AI models to take over more management responsibilities can be an effective form of human-AI collaboration.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-16T11:02:46Z) - PECAN: Leveraging Policy Ensemble for Context-Aware Zero-Shot Human-AI
Coordination [52.991211077362586]
We propose a policy ensemble method to increase the diversity of partners in the population.
We then develop a context-aware method enabling the ego agent to analyze and identify the partner's potential policy primitives.
In this way, the ego agent is able to learn more universal cooperative behaviors for collaborating with diverse partners.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-16T12:14:58Z) - Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and
Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making [10.890854857970488]
Many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user's domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more.
Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled.
Our results show that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid user decision making, factors such as users' baseline performance relative to the AI and complementary tuning of AI error types significantly impact overall team performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-08-16T21:39:58Z) - A Cognitive Framework for Delegation Between Error-Prone AI and Human
Agents [0.0]
We investigate the use of cognitively inspired models of behavior to predict the behavior of both human and AI agents.
The predicted behavior is used to delegate control between humans and AI agents through the use of an intermediary entity.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-06T15:15:21Z) - Warmth and competence in human-agent cooperation [0.7237068561453082]
Recent studies demonstrate that AI agents trained with deep reinforcement learning are capable of collaborating with humans.
We train deep reinforcement learning agents in Coins, a two-player social dilemma.
Participants' perceptions of warmth and competence predict their stated preferences for different agents.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-01-31T18:57:08Z) - Watch-And-Help: A Challenge for Social Perception and Human-AI
Collaboration [116.28433607265573]
We introduce Watch-And-Help (WAH), a challenge for testing social intelligence in AI agents.
In WAH, an AI agent needs to help a human-like agent perform a complex household task efficiently.
We build VirtualHome-Social, a multi-agent household environment, and provide a benchmark including both planning and learning based baselines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-19T21:48:31Z)
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.