On the Effect of Contextual Information on Human Delegation Behavior in Human-AI collaboration

The constantly increasing capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) open new possibilities for human-AI collaboration. One promising approach to leverage existing complementary capabilities is allowing humans to delegate individual instances to the AI. However, enabling humans to delegate instances effectively requires them to assess both their own and the AI's capabilities in the context of the given task. In this work, we explore the effects of providing contextual information on human decisions to delegate instances to an AI. We find that providing participants with contextual information significantly improves the human-AI team performance. Additionally, we show that the delegation behavior changes significantly when participants receive varying types of contextual information. Overall, this research advances the understanding of human-AI interaction in human delegation and provides actionable insights for designing more effective collaborative systems.

Towards Effective Human-AI Decision-Making: The Role of Human Learning in Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice

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.

Improving the Efficiency of Human-in-the-Loop Systems: Adding Artificial to Human Experts

Information systems increasingly leverage artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to generate value from vast amounts of data. However, ML models are imperfect and can generate incorrect classifications. Hence, human-in-the-loop (HITL) extensions to ML models add a human review for instances that are difficult to classify. This study argues that continuously relying on human experts to handle difficult model classifications leads to a strong increase in human effort, which strains limited resources. To address this issue, we propose a hybrid system that creates artificial experts that learn to classify data instances from unknown classes previously reviewed by human experts. Our hybrid system assesses which artificial expert is suitable for classifying an instance from an unknown class and automatically assigns it. Over time, this reduces human effort and increases the efficiency of the system. Our experiments demonstrate that our approach outperforms traditional HITL systems for several benchmarks on image classification.

ML-Based Teaching Systems: A Conceptual Framework

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.

On the Interdependence of Reliance Behavior and Accuracy in AI-Assisted Decision-Making

In AI-assisted decision-making, a central promise of putting a human in the loop is that they should be able to complement the AI system by adhering to its correct and overriding its mistaken recommendations. In practice, however, we often see that humans tend to over- or under-rely on AI recommendations, meaning that they either adhere to wrong or override correct recommendations. Such reliance behavior is detrimental to decision-making accuracy. In this work, we articulate and analyze the interdependence between reliance behavior and accuracy in AI-assisted decision-making, which has been largely neglected in prior work. We also propose a visual framework to make this interdependence more tangible. This framework helps us interpret and compare empirical findings, as well as obtain a nuanced understanding of the effects of interventions (e.g., explanations) in AI-assisted decision-making. Finally, we infer several interesting properties from the framework: (i) when humans under-rely on AI recommendations, there may be no possibility for them to complement the AI in terms of decision-making accuracy; (ii) when humans cannot discern correct and wrong AI recommendations, no such improvement can be expected either; (iii) interventions may lead to an increase in decision-making accuracy that is solely driven by an increase in humans' adherence to AI recommendations, without any ability to discern correct and wrong. Our work emphasizes the importance of measuring and reporting both effects on accuracy and reliance behavior when empirically assessing interventions.

Enabling Inter-organizational Analytics in Business Networks Through Meta Machine Learning

Successful analytics solutions that provide valuable insights often hinge on the connection of various data sources. While it is often feasible to generate larger data pools within organizations, the application of analytics within (inter-organizational) business networks is still severely constrained. As data is distributed across several legal units, potentially even across countries, the fear of disclosing sensitive information as well as the sheer volume of the data that would need to be exchanged are key inhibitors for the creation of effective system-wide solutions -- all while still reaching superior prediction performance. In this work, we propose a meta machine learning method that deals with these obstacles to enable comprehensive analyses within a business network. We follow a design science research approach and evaluate our method with respect to feasibility and performance in an industrial use case. First, we show that it is feasible to perform network-wide analyses that preserve data confidentiality as well as limit data transfer volume. Second, we demonstrate that our method outperforms a conventional isolated analysis and even gets close to a (hypothetical) scenario where all data could be shared within the network. Thus, we provide a fundamental contribution for making business networks more effective, as we remove a key obstacle to tap the huge potential of learning from data that is scattered throughout the network.

Human-AI Collaboration: The Effect of AI Delegation on Human Task Performance and Task Satisfaction

Recent work has proposed artificial intelligence (AI) models that can learn to decide whether to make a prediction for an instance of a task or to delegate it to a human by considering both parties' capabilities. In simulations with synthetically generated or context-independent human predictions, delegation can help improve the performance of human-AI teams -- compared to humans or the AI model completing the task alone. However, so far, it remains unclear how humans perform and how they perceive the task when they are aware that an AI model delegated task instances to them. In an experimental study with 196 participants, we show that task performance and task satisfaction improve through AI delegation, regardless of whether humans are aware of the delegation. Additionally, we identify humans' increased levels of self-efficacy as the underlying mechanism for these improvements in performance and satisfaction. Our findings provide initial evidence that allowing AI models to take over more management responsibilities can be an effective form of human-AI collaboration in workplaces.

Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations

AI advice is becoming increasingly popular, e.g., in investment and medical treatment decisions. As this advice is typically imperfect, decision-makers have to exert discretion as to whether actually follow that advice: they have to "appropriately" rely on correct and turn down incorrect advice. However, current research on appropriate reliance still lacks a common definition as well as an operational measurement concept. Additionally, no in-depth behavioral experiments have been conducted that help understand the factors influencing this behavior. In this paper, we propose Appropriateness of Reliance (AoR) as an underlying, quantifiable two-dimensional measurement concept. We develop a research model that analyzes the effect of providing explanations for AI advice. In an experiment with 200 participants, we demonstrate how these explanations influence the AoR, and, thus, the effectiveness of AI advice. Our work contributes fundamental concepts for the analysis of reliance behavior and the purposeful design of AI advisors.

Towards Meaningful Anomaly Detection: The Effect of Counterfactual Explanations on the Investigation of Anomalies in Multivariate Time Series

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.

Appropriate Reliance, Explainable AI, Human-AI Collaboration, Human-AI Complementarity

AI advice is becoming increasingly popular, e.g., in investment and medical treatment decisions. As this advice is typically imperfect, decision-makers have to exert discretion as to whether actually follow that advice: they have to "appropriately" rely on correct and turn down incorrect advice. However, current research on appropriate reliance still lacks a common definition as well as an operational measurement concept. Additionally, no in-depth behavioral experiments have been conducted that help understand the factors influencing this behavior. In this paper, we propose Appropriateness of Reliance (AoR) as an underlying, quantifiable two-dimensional measurement concept. We develop a research model that analyzes the effect of providing explanations for AI advice. In an experiment with 200 participants, we demonstrate how these explanations influence the AoR, and, thus, the effectiveness of AI advice. Our work contributes fundamental concepts for the analysis of reliance behavior and the purposeful design of AI advisors.