The Drawback of Insight: Detailed Explanations Can Reduce Agreement with XAI
2404.19629
0
0
🤿
Abstract
With the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based decision-making, explanations help increase new technology adoption through enhanced trust and reliability. However, our experimental study challenges the notion that every user universally values explanations. We argue that the agreement with AI suggestions, whether accompanied by explanations or not, is influenced by individual differences in personality traits and the users' comfort with technology. We found that people with higher neuroticism and lower technological comfort showed more agreement with the recommendations without explanations. As more users become exposed to eXplainable AI (XAI) and AI-based systems, we argue that the XAI design should not provide explanations for users with high neuroticism and low technology comfort. Prioritizing user personalities in XAI systems will help users become better collaborators of AI systems.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The study challenges the notion that all users universally value explanations for AI-based decisions.
- It argues that agreement with AI suggestions is influenced by individual differences in personality traits and users' comfort with technology.
- The findings suggest that users with higher neuroticism and lower technological comfort show more agreement with recommendations without explanations.
- The authors recommend that eXplainable AI (XAI) systems should not prioritize providing explanations for users with high neuroticism and low technology comfort.
Plain English Explanation
As Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based decision-making becomes more prevalent, there has been a push for eXplainable AI (XAI) to increase trust and reliability. However, this study challenges the idea that all users universally value explanations for AI decisions.
The researchers found that a person's agreement with AI suggestions is influenced by their individual personality traits and how comfortable they are with technology. People with higher levels of neuroticism (a personality trait associated with anxiety and negative emotions) and lower technological comfort were more likely to agree with the AI's recommendations, even if no explanation was provided.
This suggests that for some users, explanations may not be as important as previously thought. The authors argue that XAI systems should not prioritize providing explanations for users who are highly neurotic and not very comfortable with technology. Instead, prioritizing user personalities in XAI systems could help these users become better collaborators with AI.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted an experimental study to investigate the role of explanations in users' agreement with AI-based suggestions. They hypothesized that individual differences in personality traits and technological comfort would influence the impact of explanations on user agreement.
The study involved participants completing a task where they were presented with AI-generated recommendations, some of which were accompanied by explanations and others were not. The researchers measured the participants' agreement with the recommendations, as well as their levels of neuroticism and technological comfort.
The results showed that participants with higher levels of neuroticism and lower technological comfort were more likely to agree with the AI recommendations without explanations. In contrast, users with lower neuroticism and higher technological comfort were more influenced by the presence of explanations.
These findings challenge the common assumption that explanations are universally valued by users of AI systems. The authors argue that XAI systems should be designed to take into account individual user differences, rather than providing explanations for all users.
Critical Analysis
The study provides valuable insights into the role of user personality and technology comfort in shaping preferences for AI explanations. However, it is important to consider some potential limitations and areas for further research.
One limitation is the specific task and context used in the experiment. The findings may not generalize to other types of AI-based decisions or settings. Additionally, the study only examined two personality traits (neuroticism and technological comfort), and it would be beneficial to explore the influence of other individual differences, such as cognitive style or risk tolerance.
Another potential issue is the binary categorization of explanations as either present or absent. In practice, XAI systems may provide varying levels of explanation, and the effectiveness of these different approaches could be influenced by user characteristics.
Overall, this study highlights the importance of considering individual user factors in the design and deployment of XAI systems. While the findings challenge the assumption that explanations are universally valued, further research is needed to fully understand the complex interplay between user characteristics, task context, and the design of explanatory AI systems.
Conclusion
This experimental study challenges the widespread belief that all users universally value explanations for AI-based decisions. The researchers found that an individual's agreement with AI suggestions is influenced by their personality traits and comfort with technology.
Specifically, users with higher neuroticism and lower technological comfort were more likely to agree with the AI recommendations without explanations. This suggests that for some users, explanations may not be as important as previously thought.
The authors argue that eXplainable AI (XAI) systems should be designed to prioritize user personalities and not automatically provide explanations for all users. By understanding individual differences, XAI systems can be better tailored to help users become more effective collaborators with AI.
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
Should XAI Nudge Human Decisions with Explanation Biasing?
Yosuke Fukuchi, Seiji Yamada
0
0
This paper reviews our previous trials of Nudge-XAI, an approach that introduces automatic biases into explanations from explainable AIs (XAIs) with the aim of leading users to better decisions, and it discusses the benefits and challenges. Nudge-XAI uses a user model that predicts the influence of providing an explanation or emphasizing it and attempts to guide users toward AI-suggested decisions without coercion. The nudge design is expected to enhance the autonomy of users, reduce the risk associated with an AI making decisions without users' full agreement, and enable users to avoid AI failures. To discuss the potential of Nudge-XAI, this paper reports a post-hoc investigation of previous experimental results using cluster analysis. The results demonstrate the diversity of user behavior in response to Nudge-XAI, which supports our aim of enhancing user autonomy. However, it also highlights the challenge of users who distrust AI and falsely make decisions contrary to AI suggestions, suggesting the need for personalized adjustment of the strength of nudges to make this approach work more generally.
6/12/2024
Privacy Implications of Explainable AI in Data-Driven Systems
Fatima Ezzeddine
0
0
Machine learning (ML) models, demonstrably powerful, suffer from a lack of interpretability. The absence of transparency, often referred to as the black box nature of ML models, undermines trust and urges the need for efforts to enhance their explainability. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques address this challenge by providing frameworks and methods to explain the internal decision-making processes of these complex models. Techniques like Counterfactual Explanations (CF) and Feature Importance play a crucial role in achieving this goal. Furthermore, high-quality and diverse data remains the foundational element for robust and trustworthy ML applications. In many applications, the data used to train ML and XAI explainers contain sensitive information. In this context, numerous privacy-preserving techniques can be employed to safeguard sensitive information in the data, such as differential privacy. Subsequently, a conflict between XAI and privacy solutions emerges due to their opposing goals. Since XAI techniques provide reasoning for the model behavior, they reveal information relative to ML models, such as their decision boundaries, the values of features, or the gradients of deep learning models when explanations are exposed to a third entity. Attackers can initiate privacy breaching attacks using these explanations, to perform model extraction, inference, and membership attacks. This dilemma underscores the challenge of finding the right equilibrium between understanding ML decision-making and safeguarding privacy.
6/26/2024
🏋️
The Impact of Imperfect XAI on Human-AI Decision-Making
Katelyn Morrison, Philipp Spitzer, Violet Turri, Michelle Feng, Niklas Kuhl, Adam Perer
0
0
Explainability techniques are rapidly being developed to improve human-AI decision-making across various cooperative work settings. Consequently, previous research has evaluated how decision-makers collaborate with imperfect AI by investigating appropriate reliance and task performance with the aim of designing more human-centered computer-supported collaborative tools. Several human-centered explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed in hopes of improving decision-makers' collaboration with AI; however, these techniques are grounded in findings from previous studies that primarily focus on the impact of incorrect AI advice. Few studies acknowledge the possibility of the explanations being incorrect even if the AI advice is correct. Thus, it is crucial to understand how imperfect XAI affects human-AI decision-making. In this work, we contribute a robust, mixed-methods user study with 136 participants to evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task, taking into account their level of expertise and an explanation's level of assertiveness. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance. We also discuss how explanations can deceive decision-makers during human-AI collaboration. Hence, we shed light on the impacts of imperfect XAI in the field of computer-supported cooperative work and provide guidelines for designers of human-AI collaboration systems.
5/9/2024
The future of human-centric eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is not post-hoc explanations
Vinitra Swamy, Jibril Frej, Tanja Kaser
0
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) plays a crucial role in enabling human understanding and trust in deep learning systems. As models get larger, more ubiquitous, and pervasive in aspects of daily life, explainability is necessary to minimize adverse effects of model mistakes. Unfortunately, current approaches in human-centric XAI (e.g. predictive tasks in healthcare, education, or personalized ads) tend to rely on a single post-hoc explainer, whereas recent work has identified systematic disagreement between post-hoc explainers when applied to the same instances of underlying black-box models. In this paper, we therefore present a call for action to address the limitations of current state-of-the-art explainers. We propose a shift from post-hoc explainability to designing interpretable neural network architectures. We identify five needs of human-centric XAI (real-time, accurate, actionable, human-interpretable, and consistent) and propose two schemes for interpretable-by-design neural network workflows (adaptive routing with InterpretCC and temporal diagnostics with I2MD). We postulate that the future of human-centric XAI is neither in explaining black-boxes nor in reverting to traditional, interpretable models, but in neural networks that are intrinsically interpretable.
5/29/2024