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.

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 10:00 PM ET on Friday, February 6 until 10:00 AM ET on Saturday, February 7 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.

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


Title: Designing Behavior-Aware AI to Improve the Human-AI Team Performance in AI-Assisted Decision Making
With the rapid development of decision aids that are driven by AI models, the practice of AI-assisted decision making has become increasingly prevalent. To improve the human-AI team performance in decision making, earlier studies mostly focus on enhancing humans' capability in better utilizing a given AI-driven decision aid. In this paper, we tackle this challenge through a complementary approach—we aim to train behavior-aware AI by adjusting the AI model underlying the decision aid to account for humans' behavior in adopting AI advice. In particular, as humans are observed to accept AI advice more when their confidence in their own judgement is low, we propose to train AI models with a human-confidence-based instance weighting strategy, instead of solving the standard empirical risk minimization problem. Under an assumed, threshold-based model characterizing when humans will adopt the AI advice, we first derive the optimal instance weighting strategy for training AI models. We then validate the efficacy and robustness of our proposed method in improving the human-AI joint decision making performance through systematic experimentation on synthetic datasets. Finally, via randomized experiments with real human subjects along with their actual behavior in adopting the AI advice, we demonstrate that our method can significantly improve the decision making performance of the human-AI team in practice.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2340209
PAR ID:
10588067
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Publisher / Repository:
International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization
Date Published:
ISBN:
978-1-956792-04-1
Page Range / eLocation ID:
3106 to 3114
Format(s):
Medium: X
Location:
Jeju, South Korea
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, 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
  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. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, ACM)
    Despite the growing interest in human-AI decision making, experimental studies with domain experts remain rare, largely due to the complexity of working with domain experts and the challenges in setting up realistic experiments. In this work, we conduct an in-depth collaboration with radiologists in prostate cancer diagnosis based on MRI images. Building on existing tools for teaching prostate cancer diagnosis, we develop an interface and conduct two experiments to study how AI assistance and performance feedback shape the decision making of domain experts. In Study 1, clinicians were asked to provide an initial diagnosis (human), then view the AI's prediction, and subsequently finalize their decision (human-AI team). In Study 2 (after a memory wash-out period), the same participants first received aggregated performance statistics from Study 1, specifically their own performance, the AI's performance, and their human-AI team performance, and then directly viewed the AI's prediction before making their diagnosis (i.e., no independent initial diagnosis). These two workflows represent realistic ways that clinical AI tools might be used in practice, where the second study simulates a scenario where doctors can adjust their reliance and trust on AI based on prior performance feedback. Our findings show that, while human-AI teams consistently outperform humans alone, they still underperform the AI due to under-reliance, similar to prior studies with crowdworkers. Providing clinicians with performance feedback did not significantly improve the performance of human-AI teams, although showing AI decisions in advance nudges people to follow AI more. Meanwhile, we observe that the ensemble of human-AI teams can outperform AI alone, suggesting promising directions for human-AI collaboration. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence)
    The increased integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in human workflows has resulted in a new paradigm of AI-assisted decision making,in which an AI model provides decision recommendations while humans make the final decisions. To best support humans in decision making, it is critical to obtain a quantitative understanding of how humans interact with and rely on AI. Previous studies often model humans' reliance on AI as an analytical process, i.e., reliance decisions are made based on cost-benefit analysis. However, theoretical models in psychology suggest that the reliance decisions can often be driven by emotions like humans' trust in AI models. In this paper, we propose a hidden Markov model to capture the affective process underlying the human-AI interaction in AI-assisted decision making, by characterizing how decision makers adjust their trust in AI over time and make reliance decisions based on their trust. Evaluations on real human behavior data collected from human-subject experiments show that the proposed model outperforms various baselines in accurately predicting humans' reliance behavior in AI-assisted decision making. Based on the proposed model, we further provide insights into how humans' trust and reliance dynamics in AI-assisted decision making is influenced by contextual factors like decision stakes and their interaction experiences. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-23))
    With the increased integration of AI technologies in human decision making processes, adversarial attacks on AI models become a greater concern than ever before as they may significantly hurt humans’ trust in AI models and decrease the effectiveness of human-AI collaboration. While many adversarial attack methods have been proposed to decrease the performance of an AI model, limited attention has been paid on understanding how these attacks will impact the human decision makers interacting with the model, and accordingly, how to strategically deploy adversarial attacks to maximize the reduction of human trust and reliance. In this paper, through a human-subject experiment, we first show that in AI-assisted decision making, the timing of the attacks largely influences how much humans decrease their trust in and reliance on AI—the decrease is particularly salient when attacks occur on decision making tasks that humans are highly confident themselves. Based on these insights, we next propose an algorithmic framework to infer the human decision maker’s hidden trust in the AI model and dynamically decide when the attacker should launch an attack to the model. Our evaluations show that following the proposed approach, attackers deploy more efficient attacks and achieve higher utility than adopting other baseline strategies. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Text Encoded Conversion
  • XML
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email