Romy Müller

Romy Müller, Marcel Dürschmidt, Julian Ullrich et al.

Deep Learning models like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are powerful image classifiers, but what factors determine whether they attend to similar image areas as humans do? While previous studies have focused on technological factors, little is known about the role of factors that affect human attention. In the present study, we investigated how the tasks used to elicit human attention maps interact with image characteristics in modulating the similarity between humans and CNN. We varied the intentionality of human tasks, ranging from spontaneous gaze during categorization over intentional gaze-pointing up to manual area selection. Moreover, we varied the type of image to be categorized, using either singular, salient objects, indoor scenes consisting of object arrangements, or landscapes without distinct objects defining the category. The human attention maps generated in this way were compared to the CNN attention maps revealed by explainable artificial intelligence (Grad-CAM). The influence of human tasks strongly depended on image type: For objects, human manual selection produced maps that were most similar to CNN, while the specific eye movement task has little impact. For indoor scenes, spontaneous gaze produced the least similarity, while for landscapes, similarity was equally low across all human tasks. To better understand these results, we also compared the different human attention maps to each other. Our results highlight the importance of taking human factors into account when comparing the attention of humans and CNN.

Romy Müller

Saliency maps can explain how deep neural networks classify images. But are they actually useful for humans? The present systematic review of 68 user studies found that while saliency maps can enhance human performance, null effects or even costs are quite common. To investigate what modulates these effects, the empirical outcomes were organised along several factors related to the human tasks, AI performance, XAI methods, images to be classified, human participants and comparison conditions. In image-focused tasks, benefits were less common than in AI-focused tasks, but the effects depended on the specific cognitive requirements. Moreover, benefits were usually restricted to incorrect AI predictions in AI-focused tasks but to correct ones in image-focused tasks. XAI-related factors had surprisingly little impact. The evidence was limited for image- and human-related factors and the effects were highly dependent on the comparison conditions. These findings may support the design of future user studies.

Romy Müller, Judith Schmidt

When trains collide with obstacles, the consequences are often severe. To assess how artificial intelligence might contribute to avoiding collisions, we need to understand how train drivers do it. What aspects of a situation do they consider when evaluating the risk of collision? In the present study, we assumed that train drivers do not only identify potential obstacles but interpret what they see in order to anticipate how the situation might unfold. However, to date it is unclear how exactly this is accomplished. Therefore, we assessed which cues train drivers use and what inferences they make. To this end, image-based expert interviews were conducted with 33 train drivers. Participants saw images with potential obstacles, rated the risk of collision, and explained their evaluation. Moreover, they were asked how the situation would need to change to decrease or increase collision risk. From their verbal reports, we extracted concepts about the potential obstacles, contexts, or consequences, and assigned these concepts to various categories (e.g., people's identity, location, movement, action, physical features, and mental states). The results revealed that especially for people, train drivers reason about their actions and mental states, and draw relations between concepts to make further inferences. These inferences systematically differ between situations. Our findings emphasise the need to understand train drivers' risk evaluation processes when aiming to enhance the safety of both human and automatic train operation.

Romy Müller

Concept-based explainable artificial intelligence (C-XAI) can let people see which representations an AI model has learned. This is particularly important when high-level semantic information (e.g., actions and relations) is used to make decisions about abstract categories (e.g., danger). In such tasks, AI models need to generalise beyond situation-specific details, and this ability can be reflected in C-XAI outputs that randomise over irrelevant features. However, it is unclear whether people appreciate such generalisation and can distinguish it from other, less desirable forms of imprecision in C-XAI outputs. Therefore, the present study investigated how the generality and relevance of C-XAI outputs affect people's evaluation of AI. In an experimental railway safety evaluation scenario, participants rated the performance of a simulated AI that classified traffic scenes involving people as dangerous or not. These classification decisions were explained via concepts in the form of similar image snippets. The latter differed in their match with the classified image, either regarding a highly relevant feature (i.e., people's relation to tracks) or a less relevant feature (i.e., people's action). Contrary to the hypotheses, concepts that generalised over less relevant features were rated lower than concepts that matched the classified image precisely. Moreover, their ratings were no better than those for systematic misrepresentations of the less relevant feature. Conversely, participants were highly sensitive to imprecisions in relevant features. These findings cast doubts on the assumption that people can easily infer from C-XAI outputs whether AI models have gained a deeper understanding of complex situations.

Romy Müller, Franziska Kessler, David W. Humphrey et al.

In traditional production plants, current technologies do not provide sufficient context to support information integration and interpretation. Digital transformation technologies have the potential to support contextualization, but it is unclear how this can be achieved. The present article reviews psychological literature in four areas relevant to contextualization: information sampling, integration, categorization, and causal reasoning. Characteristic biases and limitations of human information processing are discussed. Based on this literature, we derive functional requirements for digital transformation technologies, focusing on the cognitive activities they should support. We then present a selection of technologies that have the potential to foster contextualization. These technologies enable the modelling of system relations, the integration of data from different sources, and the connection of the present situation with historical data. We illustrate how these technologies can support contextual reasoning and highlight challenges that should be addressed when designing human-technology cooperation in cyber-physical production systems.