Biased Error Attribution in Multi-Agent Human-AI Systems Under Delayed Feedback

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23419v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:52:14 GMT
• Title: Biased Error Attribution in Multi-Agent Human-AI Systems Under Delayed Feedback
• Abstract summary: We study how delayed outcomes shape decision-making and responsibility attribution in a multi-agent human-AI task.<n>We observe asymmetric responses to gains and losses, with stronger corrective adjustments after negative outcomes.<n>We refer to this phenomenon as a form of attribution bias, manifested as biased error attribution under delayed feedback.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Human decision-making is strongly influenced by cognitive biases, particularly under conditions of uncertainty and risk. While prior work has examined bias in single-step decisions with immediate outcomes and in human interaction with a single autonomous agent, comparatively little attention has been paid to decision-making under delayed outcomes involving multiple AI agents, where decisions at each step affect subsequent states. In this work, we study how delayed outcomes shape decision-making and responsibility attribution in a multi-agent human-AI task. Using a controlled game-based experiment, we analyze how participants adjust their behavior following positive and negative outcomes. We observe asymmetric responses to gains and losses, with stronger corrective adjustments after negative outcomes. Importantly, participants often fail to correctly identify the actions that caused failure and misattribute responsibility across AI agents, leading to systematic revisions of decisions that are weakly related to the underlying causes of poor performance. We refer to this phenomenon as a form of attribution bias, manifested as biased error attribution under delayed feedback. Our findings highlight how cognitive biases can be amplified in human-AI systems with delayed outcomes and multiple autonomous agents, underscoring the need for decision-support systems that better support causal understanding and learning over time.

Related papers

• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Human Attribution of Causality to AI Across Agency, Misuse, and Misalignment [0.0]
  This paper investigates folk perceptions of causal responsibility in causal chain structures when AI systems are involved in harmful outcomes.<n>We conduct human experiments to examine judgments of causality, blame, foreseeability, and counterfactual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T02:48:39Z)
• When Bias Backfires: The Modulatory Role of Counterfactual Explanations on the Adoption of Algorithmic Bias in XAI-Supported Human Decision-Making [0.0]
  This study simulated hiring decisions to examine how biased AI recommendations influence human judgment over time.<n>Our results indicate that the participants followed the AI recommendations 70% of the time when the qualifications of the given candidates were comparable.<n>In the post-interaction phase, participants' independent decisions aligned with the bias when no counterfactual explanations were provided before, but reversed the bias when explanations were given.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T14:00:28Z)
• Engaging with AI: How Interface Design Shapes Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making [8.948482790298645]
  We examine how various decision-support mechanisms impact user engagement, trust, and human-AI collaborative task performance.<n>Our findings reveal that mechanisms like AI confidence levels, text explanations, and performance visualizations enhanced human-AI collaborative task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T02:03:00Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [52.997197698288936]
  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)
• 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)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• 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)
• Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making [46.625616262738404]
  We use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making setting. We focus specifically on anchoring bias, a bias commonly encountered in human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T22:25:41Z)

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.