Philipp Spitzer

Katelyn Morrison, Philipp Spitzer, Violet Turri et al.

Explainability techniques are rapidly being developed to improve human-AI decision-making across various cooperative work settings. Consequently, previous research has evaluated how decision-makers collaborate with imperfect AI by investigating appropriate reliance and task performance with the aim of designing more human-centered computer-supported collaborative tools. Several human-centered explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed in hopes of improving decision-makers' collaboration with AI; however, these techniques are grounded in findings from previous studies that primarily focus on the impact of incorrect AI advice. Few studies acknowledge the possibility of the explanations being incorrect even if the AI advice is correct. Thus, it is crucial to understand how imperfect XAI affects human-AI decision-making. In this work, we contribute a robust, mixed-methods user study with 136 participants to evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task, taking into account their level of expertise and an explanation's level of assertiveness. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance. We also discuss how explanations can deceive decision-makers during human-AI collaboration. Hence, we shed light on the impacts of imperfect XAI in the field of computer-supported cooperative work and provide guidelines for designers of human-AI collaboration systems.

Max Schemmer, Andrea Bartos, Philipp Spitzer et al.

The true potential of human-AI collaboration lies in exploiting the complementary capabilities of humans and AI to achieve a joint performance superior to that of the individual AI or human, i.e., to achieve complementary team performance (CTP). To realize this complementarity potential, humans need to exercise discretion in following AI 's advice, i.e., appropriately relying on the AI's advice. While previous work has focused on building a mental model of the AI to assess AI recommendations, recent research has shown that the mental model alone cannot explain appropriate reliance. We hypothesize that, in addition to the mental model, human learning is a key mediator of appropriate reliance and, thus, CTP. In this study, we demonstrate the relationship between learning and appropriate reliance in an experiment with 100 participants. This work provides fundamental concepts for analyzing reliance and derives implications for the effective design of human-AI decision-making.

Philipp Spitzer, Joshua Holstein, Katelyn Morrison et al.

Across various applications, humans increasingly use black-box artificial intelligence (AI) systems without insight into these systems' reasoning. To counter this opacity, explainable AI (XAI) methods promise enhanced transparency and interpretability. While recent studies have explored how XAI affects human-AI collaboration, few have examined the potential pitfalls caused by incorrect explanations. The implications for humans can be far-reaching but have not been explored extensively. To investigate this, we ran a study (n=160) on AI-assisted decision-making in which humans were supported by XAI. Our findings reveal a misinformation effect when incorrect explanations accompany correct AI advice with implications post-collaboration. This effect causes humans to infer flawed reasoning strategies, hindering task execution and demonstrating impaired procedural knowledge. Additionally, incorrect explanations compromise human-AI team-performance during collaboration. With our work, we contribute to HCI by providing empirical evidence for the negative consequences of incorrect explanations on humans post-collaboration and outlining guidelines for designers of AI.

Moussa Kassem Sbeyti, Joshua Holstein, Philipp Spitzer et al.

High-quality labeled data is essential for training robust machine learning models, yet obtaining annotations at scale remains expensive. AI-assisted annotation has therefore become standard in large-scale labeling workflows. However, in tasks where model predictions carry two independent components, a class label and spatial boundaries, a model may classify an object with high confidence while mislocalizing it. Existing AI-assisted workflows offer annotators no signal about where spatial errors are most likely. Without such guidance, humans may systematically underinspect subtly misplaced boxes. We address this by studying the effect of visualizing spatial uncertainty via a purpose-built interface. In a controlled study with 120 participants, those receiving uncertainty cues achieve higher label quality while being faster overall. A box-level analysis confirms that the cues redirect annotator effort toward high-uncertainty predictions and away from well-localized boxes. These findings establish localization uncertainty as a lever to improve human-in-the-loop annotation. Code is available at https://mos-ks.github.io/MUHA/.

Philipp Spitzer, Niklas Kühl, Marc Goutier

Across a multitude of work environments, expert knowledge is imperative for humans to conduct tasks with high performance and ensure business success. These humans possess task-specific expert knowledge (TSEK) and hence, represent subject matter experts (SMEs). However, not only demographic changes but also personnel downsizing strategies lead and will continue to lead to departures of SMEs within organizations, which constitutes the challenge of how to retain that expert knowledge and train novices to keep the competitive advantage elicited by that expert knowledge. SMEs training novices is time- and cost-intensive, which intensifies the need for alternatives. Human-AI collaboration (HAIC) poses a way out of this dilemma, facilitating alternatives to preserve expert knowledge and teach it to novices for tasks conducted by SMEs beforehand. In this workshop paper, we (1) propose a framework on how HAIC can be utilized to train novices on particular tasks, (2) illustrate the role of explicit and tacit knowledge in this training process via HAIC, and (3) outline a preliminary experiment design to assess the ability of AI systems in HAIC to act as a trainer to transfer TSEK to novices who do not possess prior TSEK.

Philipp Spitzer, Joshua Holstein

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into workflows, humans must decide when to rely on AI advice. These decisions depend on general efficacy beliefs, i.e., humans' confidence in their own abilities and their perceptions of AI competence. While prior work has examined factors influencing AI reliance, the role of efficacy beliefs in shaping collaboration remains underexplored. Through a controlled experiment (N=240) where participants made repeated delegation decisions, we investigate how efficacy beliefs translate into instance-wise efficacy judgments under varying contextual information. Our explorative findings reveal efficacy beliefs as persistent cognitive anchors, leading to systematic "AI optimism". Contextual information operates asymmetrically: while AI performance information selectively eliminates the AI optimism bias, data or AI information amplify how efficacy discrepancies influence delegation decisions. Although efficacy discrepancies influence delegation behavior, they show weaker effects on human-AI team performance. As these findings challenge transparency-focused approaches, we propose design guidelines for effective collaborative settings.

Philipp Spitzer, Joshua Holstein, Michael Vössing et al.

With the increased adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in industry and society, effective human-AI interaction systems are becoming increasingly important. A central challenge in the interaction of humans with AI is the estimation of difficulty for human and AI agents for single task instances.These estimations are crucial to evaluate each agent's capabilities and, thus, required to facilitate effective collaboration. So far, research in the field of human-AI interaction estimates the perceived difficulty of humans and AI independently from each other. However, the effective interaction of human and AI agents depends on metrics that accurately reflect each agent's perceived difficulty in achieving valuable outcomes. Research to date has not yet adequately examined the differences in the perceived difficulty of humans and AI. Thus, this work reviews recent research on the perceived difficulty in human-AI interaction and contributing factors to consistently compare each agent's perceived difficulty, e.g., creating the same prerequisites. Furthermore, we present an experimental design to thoroughly examine the perceived difficulty of both agents and contribute to a better understanding of the design of such systems.

Arne Grobrügge, Niklas Kühl, Gerhard Satzger et al.

Concept-based eXplainable AI (C-XAI) aims to overcome the limitations of traditional saliency maps by converting pixels into human-understandable concepts that are consistent across an entire dataset. A crucial aspect of C-XAI is completeness, which measures how well a set of concepts explains a model's decisions. Among C-XAI methods, Multi-Dimensional Concept Discovery (MCD) effectively improves completeness by breaking down the CNN latent space into distinct and interpretable concept subspaces. However, MCD's explanations can be difficult for humans to understand, raising concerns about their practical utility. To address this, we propose Human-Understandable Multi-dimensional Concept Discovery (HU-MCD). HU-MCD uses the Segment Anything Model for concept identification and implements a CNN-specific input masking technique to reduce noise introduced by traditional masking methods. These changes to MCD, paired with the completeness relation, enable HU-MCD to enhance concept understandability while maintaining explanation faithfulness. Our experiments, including human subject studies, show that HU-MCD provides more precise and reliable explanations than existing C-XAI methods. The code is available at https://github.com/grobruegge/hu-mcd.

Philipp Spitzer, Joshua Holstein, Patrick Hemmer et al.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into human decision-making processes at the workplace presents both opportunities and challenges. One promising approach to leverage existing complementary capabilities is allowing humans to delegate individual instances of decision tasks to AI. However, enabling humans to delegate instances effectively requires them to assess several factors. One key factor is the analysis of both their own capabilities and those of the AI in the context of the given task. In this work, we conduct a behavioral study to explore the effects of providing contextual information to support this delegation decision. Specifically, we investigate how contextual information about the AI and the task domain influence humans' delegation decisions to an AI and their impact on the human-AI team performance. Our findings reveal that access to contextual information significantly improves human-AI team performance in delegation settings. Finally, we show that the delegation behavior changes with the different types of contextual information. Overall, this research advances the understanding of computer-supported, collaborative work and provides actionable insights for designing more effective collaborative systems.

Daniel Hendriks, Philipp Spitzer, Niklas Kühl et al.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has increasingly influenced modern society, recently in particular through significant advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, high computational and storage demands of LLMs still limit their deployment in resource-constrained environments. Knowledge distillation addresses this challenge by training a small student model from a larger teacher model. Previous research has introduced several distillation methods for both generating training data and for training the student model. Despite their relevance, the effects of state-of-the-art distillation methods on model performance and explainability have not been thoroughly investigated and compared. In this work, we enlarge the set of available methods by applying critique-revision prompting to distillation for data generation and by synthesizing existing methods for training. For these methods, we provide a systematic comparison based on the widely used Commonsense Question-Answering (CQA) dataset. While we measure performance via student model accuracy, we employ a human-grounded study to evaluate explainability. We contribute new distillation methods and their comparison in terms of both performance and explainability. This should further advance the distillation of small language models and, thus, contribute to broader applicability and faster diffusion of LLM technology.

Joshua Holstein, Moritz Diener, Philipp Spitzer

The rise of Generative AI, and Large Language Models (LLMs) in particular, is fundamentally changing cognitive processes in knowledge work, raising critical questions about their impact on human reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. As these AI systems become increasingly integrated into workflows, they offer unprecedented opportunities for augmenting human thinking while simultaneously risking cognitive erosion through passive consumption of generated answers. This tension is particularly pronounced in open-ended tasks, where effective solutions require deep contextualization and integration of domain knowledge. Unlike structured tasks with established metrics, measuring the quality of human-LLM interaction in such open-ended tasks poses significant challenges due to the absence of ground truth and the iterative nature of solution development. To address this, we present a framework that analyzes interaction patterns along two dimensions: cognitive activity mode (exploration vs. exploitation) and cognitive engagement mode (constructive vs. detrimental). This framework provides systematic measurements to evaluate when LLMs are effective tools for thought rather than substitutes for human cognition, advancing theoretical understanding and practical guidance for developing AI systems that protect and augment human cognitive capabilities.

Philipp Spitzer, Dominik Martin, Laurin Eichberger et al.

Domain adaptation is a sub-field of machine learning that involves transferring knowledge from a source domain to perform the same task in the target domain. It is a typical challenge in machine learning that arises, e.g., when data is obtained from various sources or when using a data basis that changes over time. Recent advances in the field offer promising methods, but it is still challenging for researchers and practitioners to determine if domain adaptation is suitable for a given problem -- and, subsequently, to select the appropriate approach. This article employs design science research to develop a problem-oriented framework for domain adaptation, which is matured in three evaluation episodes. We describe a framework that distinguishes between five domain adaptation scenarios, provides recommendations for addressing each scenario, and offers guidelines for determining if a problem falls into one of these scenarios. During the multiple evaluation episodes, the framework is tested on artificial and real-world datasets and an experimental study involving 100 participants. The evaluation demonstrates that the framework has the explanatory power to capture any domain adaptation problem effectively. In summary, we provide clear guidance for researchers and practitioners who want to employ domain adaptation but lack in-depth knowledge of the possibilities.

Philipp Spitzer, Niklas Kühl, Marc Goutier et al.

In numerous high-stakes domains, training novices via conventional learning systems does not suffice. To impart tacit knowledge, experts' hands-on guidance is imperative. However, training novices by experts is costly and time-consuming, increasing the need for alternatives. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has conventionally been used to make black-box artificial intelligence systems interpretable. In this work, we utilize XAI as an alternative: An (X)AI system is trained on experts' past decisions and is then employed to teach novices by providing examples coupled with explanations. In a study with 249 participants, we measure the effectiveness of such an approach for a classification task. We show that (X)AI-based learning systems are able to induce learning in novices and that their cognitive styles moderate learning. Thus, we take the first steps to reveal the impact of XAI on human learning and point AI developers to future options to tailor the design of (X)AI-based learning systems.

Philipp Spitzer, Niklas Kühl, Daniel Heinz et al.

As the shortage of skilled workers continues to be a pressing issue, exacerbated by demographic change, it is becoming a critical challenge for organizations to preserve the knowledge of retiring experts and to pass it on to novices. While this knowledge transfer has traditionally taken place through personal interaction, it lacks scalability and requires significant resources and time. IT-based teaching systems have addressed this scalability issue, but their development is still tedious and time-consuming. In this work, we investigate the potential of machine learning (ML) models to facilitate knowledge transfer in an organizational context, leading to more cost-effective IT-based teaching systems. Through a systematic literature review, we examine key concepts, themes, and dimensions to better understand and design ML-based teaching systems. To do so, we capture and consolidate the capabilities of ML models in IT-based teaching systems, inductively analyze relevant concepts in this context, and determine their interrelationships. We present our findings in the form of a review of the key concepts, themes, and dimensions to understand and inform on ML-based teaching systems. Building on these results, our work contributes to research on computer-supported cooperative work by conceptualizing how ML-based teaching systems can preserve expert knowledge and facilitate its transfer from SMEs to human novices. In this way, we shed light on this emerging subfield of human-computer interaction and serve to build an interdisciplinary research agenda.

Dominik Martin, Philipp Spitzer, Niklas Kühl

Forecasts of product demand are essential for short- and long-term optimization of logistics and production. Thus, the most accurate prediction possible is desirable. In order to optimally train predictive models, the deviation of the forecast compared to the actual demand needs to be assessed by a proper metric. However, if a metric does not represent the actual prediction error, predictive models are insufficiently optimized and, consequently, will yield inaccurate predictions. The most common metrics such as MAPE or RMSE, however, are not suitable for the evaluation of forecasting errors, especially for lumpy and intermittent demand patterns, as they do not sufficiently account for, e.g., temporal shifts (prediction before or after actual demand) or cost-related aspects. Therefore, we propose a novel metric that, in addition to statistical considerations, also addresses business aspects. Additionally, we evaluate the metric based on simulated and real demand time series from the automotive aftermarket.