Tommaso Turchi

Roberto Figliè, Simone Caputo, Alan Serrano et al.

The use of Generative AI Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) as a new way to access and analyze data is growing in all sectors, and the industrial one is no exception. There, large amounts of data produced by IoT devices are flowing through user interfaces and may require them a new adaptation to the new analyses needs of decision-makers. LLM-based CUIs are promising a new way to directly interact with those data through the directness of natural language and without the learning costs that every GUI design has. Moreover, the capabilities of LLMs and their agency open up the possibility to automate some tasks and help with the reasoning during decision-making activities. But are this promises well founded? We try to scope this general question with a mixed-approach study comparing a state-of-the-art dashboard with a conversational agent. A total of 20 participants used both interfaces to complete four simulated industrial decision tasks of varying complexity. We combined measures of mental workload, completion time, and decision accuracy with a post-study questionnaire and semi-structured interviews analyzed through thematic analysis. The findings suggest that the conversational agent can reduce interactional effort by supporting more direct access to information, while the dashboard remains valuable for overview and verification. However, these benefits may vary across tasks and require validation through larger-scale studies.

Roberto Figliè, Simone Caputo, Alan Serrano et al.

Managers in manufacturing settings rely on digital interfaces to interpret operational data for decision-making, but growing data volume and complexity can make relevant insights difficult to identify efficiently. While dashboards remain dominant in industrial contexts, Large Language Model (LLM)-based conversational agents (CAs), accessed through conversational user interfaces (CUIs), may provide more direct access to such data. However, their effectiveness may depend on the information-processing demands of the task. This study compares an LLM-based CA delivered through a CUI with a dashboard in a manufacturing decision-support scenario. In a mixed factorial experiment with a 2x3 design, 134 industrial decision-makers were assigned to one interface condition and completed three tasks of increasing complexity. We examined perceived Mental Workload (MWL), decision accuracy, completion time, and intended reliance, and tested self-reported data literacy as a moderator. Results showed that the CUI reduced perceived MWL overall and supported faster completion in less demanding tasks, but both advantages diminished as task complexity increased. Neither interface produced a consistent overall advantage in decision accuracy, and the CUI was not preferred as a sole basis for subsequent decisions. Furthermore, data literacy did not reliably moderate interface effects. These findings indicate that conversational interaction offers conditional rather than universal benefits for industrial decision support. LLM-based CAs may reduce information-access effort, whereas complex decisions continue to benefit from persistent, inspectable visual representations.

Tommaso Turchi, Ben Wilson, Matt Roach et al.

AI is now embedded in healthcare, finance, policy, and many other domains, yet genuine human-AI synergy - combined performance that exceeds what either party achieves alone - is uncommon. Meta-analyses show that AI assistance tends to improve human performance compared to working alone, but studies finding true synergy are scarce. We call this persistent shortfall the synergy gap. Most current work treats human-AI combination as an engineering problem and concentrates on interpretability, trust calibration, or interface design. These matter, but they cover only part of what determines whether combination works. Closing the synergy gap, we argue, requires explicit engagement with a wider design space. We map that space through six interconnected elements: sociotechnical context, decision-making frameworks, human decision participants, AI capabilities, interaction, and holistic evaluation. For each element, we describe what it covers, how it shapes the others in practice, and what it implies for design. The result is a shared vocabulary for practitioners building hybrid systems, an analytical lens for researchers studying combination patterns, and a starting point for evaluators interested in the full quality of human-AI decision-making rather than accuracy alone.

Alan Dix, Tommaso Turchi, Ben Wilson et al.

While XAI focuses on providing AI explanations to humans, can the reverse - humans explaining their judgments to AI - foster richer, synergistic human-AI systems? This paper explores various forms of human inputs to AI and examines how human explanations can guide machine learning models toward automated judgments and explanations that align more closely with human concepts.