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.

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.

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.

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.