Does AI help humans make better decisions? A methodological framework for experimental evaluation
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines whether AI systems can improve human decision-making
- Proposes a methodological framework for experimentally evaluating the impact of AI on human decision-making
- Focuses on a case study involving a public risk assessment instrument
Plain English Explanation
The paper investigates whether using AI systems can help humans make better decisions. It suggests a research approach to experimentally evaluate the impact of AI on human decision-making. The researchers focus on a real-world example - a public risk assessment instrument used to inform decisions.
The key idea is to compare how humans perform on decision-making tasks with and without the assistance of an AI system. This allows the researchers to assess whether the AI improves or hinders human decision-making. The paper outlines a detailed methodology for designing and conducting such experiments in a rigorous and controlled manner.
By promoting decision-making autonomy and fair machine guidance, the researchers aim to understand how AI-based recommendations can be designed to enhance rather than replace human judgment and decision-making.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a methodological framework for experimentally evaluating the impact of AI systems on human decision-making. It focuses on a case study involving a public risk assessment instrument used to inform decisions.
The key elements of the framework include:
- Experimental Design: Participants are randomly assigned to two groups - one with access to the AI system and one without. They then complete a series of decision-making tasks related to the risk assessment instrument.
- Performance Metrics: The researchers measure various outcomes, such as decision accuracy, speed, confidence, and user experience, to assess the impact of the AI system.
- Statistical Analysis: Appropriate statistical tests are used to compare the performance of the two groups and determine if the AI system significantly improves human decision-making.
The researchers highlight the importance of designing the AI system in a way that promotes decision-making autonomy and fair machine guidance, rather than simply replacing human judgment. This allows them to design algorithmic recommendations that enhance rather than undermine human decision-making.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a well-designed methodological framework for evaluating the impact of AI on human decision-making. However, the authors acknowledge several limitations and areas for further research:
- Generalizability: The case study focuses on a specific risk assessment instrument, so the findings may not readily generalize to other decision-making domains.
- User Experience: The paper primarily focuses on objective performance metrics, but user experience and acceptance of the AI system are also important considerations.
- Long-term Effects: The experiments are conducted in a controlled lab setting, so the long-term effects of using AI systems in real-world decision-making contexts are not addressed.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential ethical implications of using AI systems to inform decisions that can have significant consequences for individuals or society. Further research is needed to question the role of AI and ensure that it is designed and deployed in a way that enhances rather than undermines human decision-making.
Conclusion
This paper presents a rigorous methodological framework for experimentally evaluating the impact of AI systems on human decision-making. By focusing on a real-world case study involving a public risk assessment instrument, the researchers aim to provide insights into how AI can be designed to enhance rather than replace human judgment.
The findings from this research have the potential to inform the development of fair and effective AI-based decision support systems that promote decision-making autonomy and improve human decision-making across a range of domains.
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
Does AI help humans make better decisions? A methodological framework for experimental evaluation
Eli Ben-Michael, D. James Greiner, Melody Huang, Kosuke Imai, Zhichao Jiang, Sooahn Shin
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or more generally data-driven algorithms, has become ubiquitous in today's society. Yet, in many cases and especially when stakes are high, humans still make final decisions. The critical question, therefore, is whether AI helps humans make better decisions compared to a human-alone or AI-alone system. We introduce a new methodological framework to experimentally answer this question without additional assumptions. We measure a decision maker's ability to make correct decisions using standard classification metrics based on the baseline potential outcome. We consider a single-blinded experimental design, in which the provision of AI-generated recommendations is randomized across cases with humans making final decisions. Under this experimental design, we show how to compare the performance of three alternative decision-making systems -- human-alone, human-with-AI, and AI-alone. We also show when to provide a human-decision maker with AI recommendations and when they should follow such recommendations. We apply the proposed methodology to the data from our own randomized controlled trial of a pretrial risk assessment instrument. We find that the risk assessment recommendations do not improve the classification accuracy of a judge's decision to impose cash bail. Our analysis also shows that the risk assessment-alone decisions generally perform worse than human decisions with or without algorithmic assistance.
Read more9/25/2024
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
Questioning AI: Promoting Decision-Making Autonomy Through Reflection
Simon WS Fischer
Decision-making is increasingly supported by machine recommendations. In healthcare, for example, a clinical decision support system is used by the physician to find a treatment option for a patient. In doing so, people can rely too much on these systems, which impairs their own reasoning process. The European AI Act addresses the risk of over-reliance and postulates in Article 14 on human oversight that people should be able to remain aware of the possible tendency of automatically relying or over-relying on the output. Similarly, the EU High-Level Expert Group identifies human agency and oversight as the first of seven key requirements for trustworthy AI. The following position paper proposes a conceptual approach to generate machine questions about the decision at hand, in order to promote decision-making autonomy. This engagement in turn allows for oversight of recommender systems. The systematic and interdisciplinary investigation (e.g., machine learning, user experience design, psychology, philosophy of technology) of human-machine interaction in relation to decision-making provides insights to questions like: how to increase human oversight and calibrate over- and under-reliance on machine recommendations; how to increase decision-making autonomy and remain aware of other possibilities beyond automated suggestions that repeat the status-quo?
Read more9/17/2024
🤖
0
AI Reliance and Decision Quality: Fundamentals, Interdependence, and the Effects of Interventions
Jakob Schoeffer, Johannes Jakubik, Michael Voessing, Niklas Kuehl, Gerhard Satzger
In AI-assisted decision-making, a central promise of having a human-in-the-loop is that they should be able to complement the AI system by overriding its wrong recommendations. In practice, however, we often see that humans cannot assess the correctness of AI recommendations and, as a result, adhere to wrong or override correct advice. Different ways of relying on AI recommendations have immediate, yet distinct, implications for decision quality. Unfortunately, reliance and decision quality are often inappropriately conflated in the current literature on AI-assisted decision-making. In this work, we disentangle and formalize the relationship between reliance and decision quality, and we characterize the conditions under which human-AI complementarity is achievable. To illustrate how reliance and decision quality relate to one another, we propose a visual framework and demonstrate its usefulness for interpreting empirical findings, including the effects of interventions like explanations. Overall, our research highlights the importance of distinguishing between reliance behavior and decision quality in AI-assisted decision-making.
Read more8/29/2024