skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Mitigating belief projection in explainable artificial intelligence via Bayesian teaching
Abstract State-of-the-art deep-learning systems use decision rules that are challenging for humans to model. Explainable AI (XAI) attempts to improve human understanding but rarely accounts for how people typically reason about unfamiliar agents. We propose explicitly modelling the human explainee via Bayesian teaching, which evaluates explanations by how much they shift explainees’ inferences toward a desired goal. We assess Bayesian teaching in a binary image classification task across a variety of contexts. Absent intervention, participants predict that the AI’s classifications will match their own, but explanations generated by Bayesian teaching improve their ability to predict the AI’s judgements by moving them away from this prior belief. Bayesian teaching further allows each case to be broken down into sub-examples (here saliency maps). These sub-examples complement whole examples by improving error detection for familiar categories, whereas whole examples help predict correct AI judgements of unfamiliar cases.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2117429 1828528
PAR ID:
10301567
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Scientific Reports
Volume:
11
Issue:
1
ISSN:
2045-2322
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; (, In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI))
    AI-assisted decision making becomes increasingly prevalent, yet individuals often fail to utilize AI-based decision aids appropriately especially when the AI explanations are absent, potentially as they do not reflect on AI’s decision recommendations critically. Large language models (LLMs), with their exceptional conversational and analytical capabilities, present great opportunities to enhance AI-assisted decision making in the absence of AI explanations by providing natural-language-based analysis of AI’s decision recommendation, e.g., how each feature of a decision making task might contribute to the AI recommendation. In this paper, via a randomized experiment, we first show that presenting LLM-powered analysis of each task feature, either sequentially or concurrently, does not significantly improve people’s AI-assisted decision performance. To enable decision makers to better leverage LLM-powered analysis, we then propose an algorithmic framework to characterize the effects of LLM-powered analysis on human decisions and dynamically decide which analysis to present. Our evaluation with human subjects shows that this approach effectively improves decision makers’ appropriate reliance on AI in AI-assisted decision making. 
    more » « less
  2. ; (, The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS))
    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, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the “black-box” nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them. 
    more » « less
  3. ; (, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024))
    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, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction)
    Recent developments in AI have provided assisting tools to support pathologists’ diagnoses. However, it remains challenging to incorporate such tools into pathologists’ practice; one main concern is AI’s insufficient workflow integration with medical decisions. We observed pathologists’ examination and discovered that the main hindering factor to integrate AI is its incompatibility with pathologists’ workflow. To bridge the gap between pathologists and AI, we developed a human-AI collaborative diagnosis tool — xPath — that shares a similar examination process to that of pathologists, which can improve AI’s integration into their routine examination. The viability of xPath  is confirmed by a technical evaluation and work sessions with twelve medical professionals in pathology. This work identifies and addresses the challenge of incorporating AI models into pathology, which can offer first-hand knowledge about how HCI researchers can work with medical professionals side-by-side to bring technological advances to medical tasks towards practical applications. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series)
    Verification and validation of AI systems, particularly learning-enabled systems, is hard because often they lack formal specifications and rely instead on incomplete data and human subjective feedback. Aligning the behavior of such systems with the intended objectives and values of human designers and stakeholders is very challenging, and deploying AI systems that are misaligned can be risky. We propose to use both existing and new forms of explanations to improve the verification and validation of AI systems. Toward that goal, we preseant a framework, the agent explains its behavior and a critic signals whether the explanation passes a test. In cases where the explanation fails, the agent offers alternative explanations to gather feedback, which is then used to improve the system's alignment. We discuss examples of this approach that proved to be effective, and how to extend the scope of explanations and minimize human effort involved in this process. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email