Krzysztof Z. Gajos

Siddharth Swaroop, Zana Buçinca, Krzysztof Z. Gajos et al. · harvard

In settings where users both need high accuracy and are time-pressured, such as doctors working in emergency rooms, we want to provide AI assistance that both increases decision accuracy and reduces decision-making time. Current literature focusses on how users interact with AI assistance when there is no time pressure, finding that different AI assistances have different benefits: some can reduce time taken while increasing overreliance on AI, while others do the opposite. The precise benefit can depend on both the user and task. In time-pressured scenarios, adapting when we show AI assistance is especially important: relying on the AI assistance can save time, and can therefore be beneficial when the AI is likely to be right. We would ideally adapt what AI assistance we show depending on various properties (of the task and of the user) in order to best trade off accuracy and time. We introduce a study where users have to answer a series of logic puzzles. We find that time pressure affects how users use different AI assistances, making some assistances more beneficial than others when compared to no-time-pressure settings. We also find that a user's overreliance rate is a key predictor of their behaviour: overreliers and not-overreliers use different AI assistance types differently. We find marginal correlations between a user's overreliance rate (which is related to the user's trust in AI recommendations) and their personality traits (Big Five Personality traits). Overall, our work suggests that AI assistances have different accuracy-time tradeoffs when people are under time pressure compared to no time pressure, and we explore how we might adapt AI assistances in this setting.

Zana Buçinca, Siddharth Swaroop, Amanda E. Paluch et al. · harvard

Imagine if AI decision-support tools not only complemented our ability to make accurate decisions, but also improved our skills, boosted collaboration, and elevated the joy we derive from our tasks. Despite the potential to optimize a broad spectrum of such human-centric objectives, the design of current AI tools remains focused on decision accuracy alone. We propose offline reinforcement learning (RL) as a general approach for modeling human-AI decision-making to optimize human-AI interaction for diverse objectives. RL can optimize such objectives by tailoring decision support, providing the right type of assistance to the right person at the right time. We instantiated our approach with two objectives: human-AI accuracy on the decision-making task and human learning about the task and learned decision support policies from previous human-AI interaction data. We compared the optimized policies against several baselines in AI-assisted decision-making. Across two experiments (N=316 and N=964), our results demonstrated that people interacting with policies optimized for accuracy achieve significantly better accuracy -- and even human-AI complementarity -- compared to those interacting with any other type of AI support. Our results further indicated that human learning was more difficult to optimize than accuracy, with participants who interacted with learning-optimized policies showing significant learning improvement only at times. Our research (1) demonstrates offline RL to be a promising approach to model human-AI decision-making, leading to policies that may optimize human-centric objectives and provide novel insights about the AI-assisted decision-making space, and (2) emphasizes the importance of considering human-centric objectives beyond decision accuracy in AI-assisted decision-making, opening up the novel research challenge of optimizing human-AI interaction for such objectives.

Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Lena Mamykina

When people receive advice while making difficult decisions, they often make better decisions in the moment and also increase their knowledge in the process. However, such incidental learning can only occur when people cognitively engage with the information they receive and process this information thoughtfully. How do people process the information and advice they receive from AI, and do they engage with it deeply enough to enable learning? To answer these questions, we conducted three experiments in which individuals were asked to make nutritional decisions and received simulated AI recommendations and explanations. In the first experiment, we found that when people were presented with both a recommendation and an explanation before making their choice, they made better decisions than they did when they received no such help, but they did not learn. In the second experiment, participants first made their own choice, and only then saw a recommendation and an explanation from AI; this condition also resulted in improved decisions, but no learning. However, in our third experiment, participants were presented with just an AI explanation but no recommendation and had to arrive at their own decision. This condition led to both more accurate decisions and learning gains. We hypothesize that learning gains in this condition were due to deeper engagement with explanations needed to arrive at the decisions. This work provides some of the most direct evidence to date that it may not be sufficient to include explanations together with AI-generated recommendation to ensure that people engage carefully with the AI-provided information. This work also presents one technique that enables incidental learning and, by implication, can help people process AI recommendations and explanations more carefully.

Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, Krzysztof Z. Gajos

People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI: they accept an AI's suggestion even when that suggestion is wrong. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance and some studies suggest that it might even increase it. Informed by the dual-process theory of cognition, we posit that people rarely engage analytically with each individual AI recommendation and explanation, and instead develop general heuristics about whether and when to follow the AI suggestions. Building on prior research on medical decision-making, we designed three cognitive forcing interventions to compel people to engage more thoughtfully with the AI-generated explanations. We conducted an experiment (N=199), in which we compared our three cognitive forcing designs to two simple explainable AI approaches and to a no-AI baseline. The results demonstrate that cognitive forcing significantly reduced overreliance compared to the simple explainable AI approaches. However, there was a trade-off: people assigned the least favorable subjective ratings to the designs that reduced the overreliance the most. To audit our work for intervention-generated inequalities, we investigated whether our interventions benefited equally people with different levels of Need for Cognition (i.e., motivation to engage in effortful mental activities). Our results show that, on average, cognitive forcing interventions benefited participants higher in Need for Cognition more. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.

Maia Jacobs, Jeffrey He, Melanie F. Pradier et al.

Major depressive disorder is a debilitating disease affecting 264 million people worldwide. While many antidepressant medications are available, few clinical guidelines support choosing among them. Decision support tools (DSTs) embodying machine learning models may help improve the treatment selection process, but often fail in clinical practice due to poor system integration. We use an iterative, co-design process to investigate clinicians' perceptions of using DSTs in antidepressant treatment decisions. We identify ways in which DSTs need to engage with the healthcare sociotechnical system, including clinical processes, patient preferences, resource constraints, and domain knowledge. Our results suggest that clinical DSTs should be designed as multi-user systems that support patient-provider collaboration and offer on-demand explanations that address discrepancies between predictions and current standards of care. Through this work, we demonstrate how current trends in explainable AI may be inappropriate for clinical environments and consider paths towards designing these tools for real-world medical systems.

Fritz Lekschas, Spyridon Ampanavos, Pao Siangliulue et al.

Crowdsourced design feedback systems are emerging resources for getting large amounts of feedback in a short period of time. Traditionally, the feedback comes in the form of a declarative statement, which often contains positive or negative sentiment. Prior research has shown that overly negative or positive sentiment can strongly influence the perceived usefulness and acceptance of feedback and, subsequently, lead to ineffective design revisions. To enhance the effectiveness of crowdsourced design feedback, we investigate a new approach for mitigating the effects of negative or positive feedback by combining open-ended and thought-provoking questions with declarative feedback statements. We conducted two user studies to assess the effects of question-based feedback on the sentiment and quality of design revisions in the context of graphic design. We found that crowdsourced question-based feedback contains more neutral sentiment than statement-based feedback. Moreover, we provide evidence that presenting feedback as questions followed by statements leads to better design revisions than question- or statement-based feedback alone.

Zana Buçinca, Phoebe Lin, Krzysztof Z. Gajos et al.

Explainable artificially intelligent (XAI) systems form part of sociotechnical systems, e.g., human+AI teams tasked with making decisions. Yet, current XAI systems are rarely evaluated by measuring the performance of human+AI teams on actual decision-making tasks. We conducted two online experiments and one in-person think-aloud study to evaluate two currently common techniques for evaluating XAI systems: (1) using proxy, artificial tasks such as how well humans predict the AI's decision from the given explanations, and (2) using subjective measures of trust and preference as predictors of actual performance. The results of our experiments demonstrate that evaluations with proxy tasks did not predict the results of the evaluations with the actual decision-making tasks. Further, the subjective measures on evaluations with actual decision-making tasks did not predict the objective performance on those same tasks. Our results suggest that by employing misleading evaluation methods, our field may be inadvertently slowing its progress toward developing human+AI teams that can reliably perform better than humans or AIs alone.

Nam Wook Kim, Zoya Bylinskii, Michelle A. Borkin et al.

In this paper, we present BubbleView, an alternative methodology for eye tracking using discrete mouse clicks to measure which information people consciously choose to examine. BubbleView is a mouse-contingent, moving-window interface in which participants are presented with a series of blurred images and click to reveal "bubbles" - small, circular areas of the image at original resolution, similar to having a confined area of focus like the eye fovea. Across 10 experiments with 28 different parameter combinations, we evaluated BubbleView on a variety of image types: information visualizations, natural images, static webpages, and graphic designs, and compared the clicks to eye fixations collected with eye-trackers in controlled lab settings. We found that BubbleView clicks can both (i) successfully approximate eye fixations on different images, and (ii) be used to rank image and design elements by importance. BubbleView is designed to collect clicks on static images, and works best for defined tasks such as describing the content of an information visualization or measuring image importance. BubbleView data is cleaner and more consistent than related methodologies that use continuous mouse movements. Our analyses validate the use of mouse-contingent, moving-window methodologies as approximating eye fixations for different image and task types.