Joshua Holstein

Joshua Holstein, Patrick Hemmer, Gerhard Satzger et al.

Collaboration with artificial intelligence (AI) has improved human decision-making across various domains by leveraging the complementary capabilities of humans and AI. Yet, humans systematically overrely on AI advice, even when their independent judgment would yield superior outcomes, fundamentally undermining the potential of human-AI complementarity. Building on prior work, we identify prevailing incentive structures in human-AI decision-making as a structural driver of this overreliance. To address this misalignment, we propose an alternative incentive mechanism designed to counteract systemic overreliance. We empirically evaluate this approach through a behavioral experiment with 180 participants, finding that the proposed mechanism significantly reduces overreliance. We also show that while appropriately designed incentives can enhance collaboration and decision quality, poorly designed incentives may distort behavior, introduce unintended consequences, and ultimately degrade performance. These findings underscore the importance of aligning incentives with task context and human-AI complementarities, and suggest that effective collaboration requires a shift toward context-sensitive incentive design.

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/.

Max Schemmer, Joshua Holstein, Niklas Bauer et al.

Detecting rare events is essential in various fields, e.g., in cyber security or maintenance. Often, human experts are supported by anomaly detection systems as continuously monitoring the data is an error-prone and tedious task. However, among the anomalies detected may be events that are rare, e.g., a planned shutdown of a machine, but are not the actual event of interest, e.g., breakdowns of a machine. Therefore, human experts are needed to validate whether the detected anomalies are relevant. We propose to support this anomaly investigation by providing explanations of anomaly detection. Related work only focuses on the technical implementation of explainable anomaly detection and neglects the subsequent human anomaly investigation. To address this research gap, we conduct a behavioral experiment using records of taxi rides in New York City as a testbed. Participants are asked to differentiate extreme weather events from other anomalous events such as holidays or sporting events. Our results show that providing counterfactual explanations do improve the investigation of anomalies, indicating potential for explainable anomaly detection in general.

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.

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.

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.

Joshua Holstein, Gerhard Satzger

Artificial intelligence has become integral to organizational decision-making and while research has explored many facets of this human-AI collaboration, the focus has mainly been on designing the AI agent(s) and the way the collaboration is set up - generally assuming a human decision-maker to be "fixed". However, it has largely been neglected that decision-makers' mental models evolve through their continuous interaction with AI systems. This paper addresses this gap by conceptualizing how the design of human-AI collaboration influences the development of three complementary and interdependent mental models necessary for this collaboration. We develop an integrated socio-technical framework that identifies the mechanisms driving the mental model evolution: data contextualization, reasoning transparency, and performance feedback. Our work advances human-AI collaboration literature through three key contributions: introducing three distinct mental models (domain, information processing, complementarity-awareness); recognizing the dynamic nature of mental models; and establishing mechanisms that guide the purposeful design of effective human-AI collaboration.

Leopold Müller, Joshua Holstein, Sarah Bause et al.

Organizations increasingly adopt Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to enhance Large Language Models with enterprise-specific knowledge. However, current data quality (DQ) frameworks have been primarily developed for static datasets, and only inadequately address the dynamic, multi-stage nature of RAG systems. This study aims to develop DQ dimensions for this new type of AI-based systems. We conduct 16 semi-structured interviews with practitioners of leading IT service companies. Through a qualitative content analysis, we inductively derive 15 distinct DQ dimensions across the four processing stages of RAG systems: data extraction, data transformation, prompt & search, and generation. Our findings reveal that (1) new dimensions have to be added to traditional DQ frameworks to also cover RAG contexts; (2) these new dimensions are concentrated in early RAG steps, suggesting the need for front-loaded quality management strategies, and (3) DQ issues transform and propagate through the RAG pipeline, necessitating a dynamic, step-aware approach to quality management.