Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions
0
🗣️
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a decision theoretic framework for evaluating human decision-making in experiments.
- The framework defines a decision problem and describes how to design experiments to assess human performance in that problem.
- The authors provide technical details on the mathematical formulation and key insights from the framework.
- The paper also discusses limitations and areas for further research.
Plain English Explanation
The paper outlines a systematic approach for studying how people make decisions in experiments. At the core of this approach is defining a specific decision problem - a set of possible choices, information available to the decision-maker, and the consequences or outcomes of those choices.
By clearly specifying the decision problem, the researchers can design experiments that test how well humans perform at making decisions in that context. This allows them to rigorously evaluate human decision-making abilities and compare them to other approaches, like using artificial intelligence systems.
The technical details of the framework involve mathematical formulations to precisely represent the decision problem and analyze the decision-making process. This provides a strong theoretical foundation for the experimental research.
Ultimately, this work aims to develop better understanding of human decision-making that can inform the design of AI systems to support and enhance human decision-making in real-world applications.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a decision theoretic framework for designing and analyzing experiments that evaluate human decision-making. The key elements of this framework include:
-
Defining a decision problem - Specifying the set of possible choices, the information available to the decision-maker, and the consequences or outcomes of those choices.
-
Modeling the decision-making process - Representing the decision problem mathematically using concepts from decision theory, such as utility functions and probability distributions.
-
Experimental design - Developing experimental setups that allow for systematic testing of human performance on the defined decision problem.
-
Performance evaluation - Analyzing the data from the experiments to assess how well humans make decisions compared to theoretical optimal performance.
The authors demonstrate the application of this framework through several examples, providing technical details on the mathematical formulations and key insights generated.
Critical Analysis
The decision theoretic framework presented in this paper provides a rigorous and systematic approach for evaluating human decision-making in experimental settings. By clearly defining the decision problem upfront, the researchers can design targeted experiments to assess human performance.
However, the authors acknowledge several limitations and areas for further research:
-
Generalizability - The framework is focused on specific, well-defined decision problems, which may not capture the complexity of real-world decision-making.
-
Cognitive biases - The paper does not directly address how cognitive biases and heuristics might influence human decision-making in the experimental contexts.
-
Ecological validity - The artificial nature of the experiments may not fully reflect the decision-making processes in natural, real-world settings.
Addressing these limitations through further research could enhance the applicability and impact of this decision theoretic approach to understanding and improving human decision-making.
Conclusion
This paper presents a decision theoretic framework for designing and evaluating experiments that assess human decision-making. By clearly defining the decision problem and modeling the decision-making process, the researchers can rigorously test human performance and compare it to theoretical optimal behavior.
The technical details and insights from this framework contribute to a better understanding of human decision-making, which can inform the design of AI systems to support and enhance human decision-making in various applications. While the framework has some limitations, it provides a solid theoretical foundation for future research in this important area.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🗣️
0
Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions
Jessica Hullman, Alex Kale, Jason Hartline
How well people use information displays to make decisions is of primary interest in human-centered AI, model explainability, data visualization, and related areas. However, what constitutes a decision problem, and what is required for a study to establish that human decisions could be improved remain open to speculation. We propose a widely applicable definition of a decision problem synthesized from statistical decision theory and information economics as a standard for establishing when human decisions can be improved in HCI. We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the utility-maximizing decision. As a demonstration, we evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve these criteria. We find that only 10 (26%) of 39 studies that claim to identify biased behavior present participants with sufficient information to characterize their behavior as deviating from good decision-making in at least one treatment condition. We motivate the value of studying well-defined decision problems by describing a characterization of performance losses they allow us to conceive. In contrast, the ambiguities of a poorly communicated decision problem preclude normative interpretation. We conclude with recommendations for practice.
Read more9/17/2024
0
A Decision Theoretic Framework for Measuring AI Reliance
Ziyang Guo, Yifan Wu, Jason Hartline, Jessica Hullman
Humans frequently make decisions with the aid of artificially intelligent (AI) systems. A common pattern is for the AI to recommend an action to the human who retains control over the final decision. Researchers have identified ensuring that a human has appropriate reliance on an AI as a critical component of achieving complementary performance. We argue that the current definition of appropriate reliance used in such research lacks formal statistical grounding and can lead to contradictions. We propose a formal definition of reliance, based on statistical decision theory, which separates the concepts of reliance as the probability the decision-maker follows the AI's recommendation from challenges a human may face in differentiating the signals and forming accurate beliefs about the situation. Our definition gives rise to a framework that can be used to guide the design and interpretation of studies on human-AI complementarity and reliance. Using recent AI-advised decision making studies from literature, we demonstrate how our framework can be used to separate the loss due to mis-reliance from the loss due to not accurately differentiating the signals. We evaluate these losses by comparing to a baseline and a benchmark for complementary performance defined by the expected payoff achieved by a rational decision-maker facing the same decision task as the behavioral decision-makers.
Read more5/14/2024
📶
0
Fostering Human Learning in Sequential Decision-Making: Understanding the Role of Evaluative Feedback
Piyush Gupta, Subir Biswas, Vaibhav Srivastava
Cognitive rehabilitation, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) skill acquisition, and coaching games such as chess often require tutoring decision-making strategies. The advancement of AI-driven tutoring systems for facilitating human learning requires an understanding of the impact of evaluative feedback on human decision-making and skill development. To this end, we conduct human experiments using Amazon Mechanical Turk to study the influence of evaluative feedback on human decision-making in sequential tasks. In these experiments, participants solve the Tower of Hanoi puzzle and receive AI-generated feedback while solving it. We examine how this feedback affects their learning and skill transfer to related tasks. Additionally, treating humans as noisy optimal agents, we employ maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning to analyze the effect of feedback on the implicit human reward structure that guides their decision making. Lastly, we explore various computational models to understand how people incorporate evaluative feedback into their decision-making processes. Our findings underscore that humans perceive evaluative feedback as indicative of their long-term strategic success, thus aiding in skill acquisition and transfer in sequential decision-making tasks. Moreover, we demonstrate that evaluative feedback fosters a more structured and organized learning experience compared to learning without feedback. Furthermore, our results indicate that providing intermediate goals alone does not significantly enhance human learning outcomes.
Read more5/7/2024
0
Fair Machine Guidance to Enhance Fair Decision Making in Biased People
Mingzhe Yang, Hiromi Arai, Naomi Yamashita, Yukino Baba
Teaching unbiased decision-making is crucial for addressing biased decision-making in daily life. Although both raising awareness of personal biases and providing guidance on unbiased decision-making are essential, the latter topics remains under-researched. In this study, we developed and evaluated an AI system aimed at educating individuals on making unbiased decisions using fairness-aware machine learning. In a between-subjects experimental design, 99 participants who were prone to bias performed personal assessment tasks. They were divided into two groups: a) those who received AI guidance for fair decision-making before the task and b) those who received no such guidance but were informed of their biases. The results suggest that although several participants doubted the fairness of the AI system, fair machine guidance prompted them to reassess their views regarding fairness, reflect on their biases, and modify their decision-making criteria. Our findings provide insights into the design of AI systems for guiding fair decision-making in humans.
Read more4/9/2024