Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

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. 

AI-assisted decision-making systems hold immense potential to enhance human judgment, but their effectiveness is often hindered by a lack of understanding of the diverse ways in which humans take AI recommendations. Current research frequently relies on simplified, ``one-size-fits-all'' models to characterize an average human decision-maker, thus failing to capture the heterogeneity of people's decision-making behavior when incorporating AI assistance. To address this, we propose Mix and Match (M&M), a novel computational framework that explicitly models the diversity of human decision-makers and their unique patterns of relying on AI assistance. M&M represents the population of decision-makers as a mixture of distinct decision-making processes, with each process corresponding to a specific type of decision-maker. This approach enables us to infer latent behavioral patterns from limited data of human decisions under AI assistance, offering valuable insights into the cognitive processes underlying human-AI collaboration. Using real-world behavioral data, our empirical evaluation demonstrates that M&M consistently outperforms baseline methods in predicting human decision behavior. Furthermore, through a detailed analysis of the decision-maker types identified in our framework, we provide quantitative insights into nuanced patterns of how different individuals adopt AI recommendations. These findings offer implications for designing personalized and effective AI systems based on the diverse landscape of human behavior patterns in AI-assisted decision-making across various domains. 

Abstract MotivationSpatial omics data demand computational analysis but many analysis tools have computational resource requirements that increase with the number of cells analyzed. This presents scalability challenges as researchers use spatial omics technologies to profile millions of cells. ResultsTo enhance the scalability of spatial omics data analysis, we developed a rasterization preprocessing framework called SEraster that aggregates cellular information into spatial pixels. We apply SEraster to both real and simulated spatial omics data prior to spatial variable gene expression analysis to demonstrate that such preprocessing can reduce computational resource requirements while maintaining high performance, including as compared to other down-sampling approaches. We further integrate SEraster with existing analysis tools to characterize cell-type spatial co-enrichment across length scales. Finally, we apply SEraster to enable analysis of a mouse pup spatial omics dataset with over a million cells to identify tissue-level and cell-type-specific spatially variable genes as well as spatially co-enriched cell types that recapitulate expected organ structures. Availability and implementationSEraster is implemented as an R package on GitHub (https://github.com/JEFworks-Lab/SEraster) with additional tutorials at https://JEF.works/SEraster. 

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.