Search for: All records

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. 

Recent years have witnessed the growing literature in empirical evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods. This study contributes to this ongoing conversation by presenting a comparison on the effects of a set of established XAI methods in AI-assisted decision making. Based on our review of previous literature, we highlight three desirable properties that ideal AI explanations should satisfy — improve people’s understanding of the AI model, help people recognize the model uncertainty, and support people’s calibrated trust in the model. Through three randomized controlled experiments, we evaluate whether four types of common model-agnostic explainable AI methods satisfy these properties on two types of AI models of varying levels of complexity, and in two kinds of decision making contexts where people perceive themselves as having different levels of domain expertise. Our results demonstrate that many AI explanations do not satisfy any of the desirable properties when used on decision making tasks that people have little domain expertise in. On decision making tasks that people are more knowledgeable, the feature contribution explanation is shown to satisfy more desiderata of AI explanations, even when the AI model is inherently complex. We conclude by discussing the implications of our study for improving the design of XAI methods to better support human decision making, and for advancing more rigorous empirical evaluation of XAI methods. 

Misinformation on social media has become a serious concern. Marking news stories with credibility indicators, possibly generated by an AI model, is one way to help people combat misinformation. In this paper, we report the results of two randomized experiments that aim to understand the effects of AI-based credibility indicators on people's perceptions of and engagement with the news, when people are under social influence such that their judgement of the news is influenced by other people. We find that the presence of AI-based credibility indicators nudges people into aligning their belief in the veracity of news with the AI model's prediction regardless of its correctness, thereby changing people's accuracy in detecting misinformation. However, AI-based credibility indicators show limited impacts on influencing people's engagement with either real news or fake news when social influence exists. Finally, it is shown that when social influence is present, the effects of AI-based credibility indicators on the detection and spread of misinformation are larger as compared to when social influence is absent, when these indicators are provided to people before they form their own judgements about the news. We conclude by providing implications for better utilizing AI to fight misinformation.