While existing literature has explored and revealed several insights pertaining to the role of human factors (e.g., prior experience, domain knowledge) and attributes of AI systems (e.g., accuracy, trustworthiness), there is a limited understanding around how the important task characteristics of complexity and uncertainty shape human decision-making and human-AI team performance. In this work, we aim to address this research and empirical gap by systematically exploring how task complexity and uncertainty infuence human-AI decision-making. Task complexity refers to the load of information associated with a task, while task uncertainty refers to the level of unpredictability associated with the outcome of a task. We conducted a between-subjects user study (N = 258) in the context of a trip-planning task to investigate the impact of task complexity and uncertainty on human trust and reliance on AI systems. Our results revealed that task complexity and uncertainty have a signifcant impact on user reliance on AI systems. When presented with complex and uncertain tasks, users tended to rely more on AI systems while demonstrating lower levels of appropriate reliance compared to tasks that were less complex and uncertain. In contrast, we found that user trust in the AI systems was not infuenced by task complexity and uncertainty. Our fndings can help inform the future design of empirical studies exploring human-AI decision-making. Insights from this work can inform the design of AI systems and interventions that are better aligned with the challenges posed by complex and uncertain tasks. Finally, the lens of diagnostic versus prognostic tasks can inspire the operationalization of uncertainty in human-AI decision-making studies.

@en

Concepts are an important construct in semantics, based on which humans understand the world with various levels of abstraction. With the recent advances in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), concept-level explanations are receiving an increasing amount of attention from the broad research community. However, laypeople may find such explanations difficult to digest due to the potential knowledge gap and the concomitant cognitive load. Inspired by prior work that has explored analogies and sensemaking, we argue that augmenting concept-level explanations with analogical inference information from commonsense knowledge can be a potential solution to tackle this issue. To investigate the validity of our proposition, we first designed an effective analogy-based explanation generation method and collected 600 analogy-based explanations from 100 crowd workers. Next, we proposed a set of structured dimensions for the qualitative assessment of such explanations, and conducted an empirical evaluation of the generated analogies with experts. Our findings revealed significant positive correlations between the qualitative dimensions of analogies and the perceived helpfulness of analogy-based explanations, suggesting the effectiveness of the dimensions. To understand the practical utility and the effectiveness of analogybased explanations in assisting human decision-making, we conducted a follow-up empirical study (N = 280) on a skin cancer detection task with non-expert humans and an imperfect AI system. Thus, we designed a between-subjects study spanning five different experimental conditions with varying types of explanations. The results of our study confirmed that a knowledge gap can prevent participants from understanding concept-level explanations. Consequently, when only the target domain of our designed analogy-based explanation was provided (in a specific experimental condition), participants demonstrated relatively more appropriate reliance on the AI system. In contrast to our expectations, we found that analogies were not effective in fostering appropriate reliance. We carried out a qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses from participants in the study regarding their perceived usefulness of explanations and analogies. Our findings suggest that human intuition and the perceived plausibility of analogies may have played a role in affecting user reliance on the AI system. We also found that the understanding of commonsense explanations varied with the varying experience of the recipient user, which points out the need for further work on personalization when leveraging commonsense explanations. In summary, although we did not find quantitative support for our hypotheses around the benefits of using analogies, we found considerable qualitative evidence suggesting the potential of high-quality analogies in aiding non-expert users in their decision making with AI-assistance. These insights can inform the design of future methods for the generation and use of effective analogy-based explanations.

@en

Powerful predictive AI systems have demonstrated great potential in augmenting human decision making. Recent empirical work has argued that the vision for optimal human-AI collaboration requires ‘appropriate reliance’ on AI systems. However, accurately estimating the trustworthiness of AI advice at the instance level is quite challenging, especially in the absence of performance feedback pertaining to the AI system. In practice, the performance disparity of machine learning models on out-of-distribution data makes the dataset-specific performance feedback unreliable in human-AI collaboration. Inspired by existing literature on critical thinking and mindsets, we propose debugging an AI system as an intervention to foster appropriate reliance. This paper explores whether a critical evaluation of AI performance within a debugging setting can better calibrate users’ assessment of an AI system. Through a quantitative empirical study (N = 234), we found that our proposed debugging intervention does not work as expected in facilitating appropriate reliance. Instead, we observe a decrease in reliance on the AI system — potentially resulting from an early exposure to the AI system’s weakness. Our findings have important implications for designing effective interventions to facilitate appropriate reliance and better human-AI collaboration.@en

The dazzling promises of AI systems to augment humans in various tasks hinge on whether humans can appropriately rely on them. Recent research has shown that appropriate reliance is the key to achieving complementary team performance in AI-assisted decision making. This paper addresses an under-explored problem of whether the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) among people can hinder their appropriate reliance on AI systems. DKE is a metacognitive bias due to which less-competent individuals overestimate their own skill and performance. Through an empirical study (N = 249), we explored the impact of DKE on human reliance on an AI system, and whether such effects can be mitigated using a tutorial intervention that reveals the fallibility of AI advice, and exploiting logic units-based explanations to improve user understanding of AI advice. We found that participants who overestimate their performance tend to exhibit under-reliance on AI systems, which hinders optimal team performance. Logic units-based explanations did not help users in either improving the calibration of their competence or facilitating appropriate reliance. While the tutorial intervention was highly effective in helping users calibrate their self-assessment and facilitating appropriate reliance among participants with overestimated self-assessment, we found that it can potentially hurt the appropriate reliance of participants with underestimated self-assessment. Our work has broad implications on the design of methods to tackle user cognitive biases while facilitating appropriate reliance on AI systems. Our findings advance the current understanding of the role of self-assessment in shaping trust and reliance in human-AI decision making. This lays out promising future directions for relevant HCI research in this community.

@en

Recent advances in the performance of machine learning algorithms have led to the adoption of AI models in decision making contexts across various domains such as healthcare, finance, and education.Different research communities have attempted to optimize and evaluate human-AI team performance through empirical studies by increasing transparency of AI systems, or providing explanations to aid human understanding of such systems.However, the variety in decision making tasks considered and their operationalization in prior empirical work, has led to an opacity around how findings from one task or domain carry forward to another.The lack of a standardized means of considering task attributes prevents straightforward comparisons across decision tasks, thereby limiting the generalizability of findings.We argue that the lens of ‘task complexity’ can be used to tackle this problem of under-specification and facilitate comparison across empirical research in this area.To retrospectively explore how different HCI communities have considered the influence of task complexity in designing experiments in the realm of human-AI decision making, we survey literature and provide an overview of empirical studies on this topic.We found a serious dearth in the consideration of task complexity across various studies in this realm of research.Inspired by Robert Wood’s seminal work on the construct, we operationalized task complexity with respect to three dimensions (component, coordinative, and dynamic) and quantified the complexity of decision tasks in existing work accordingly.We then summarized current trends and proposed research directions for the future.Our study highlights the need to account for task complexity as an important design choice.This is a first step to help the scientific community in drawing meaningful comparisons across empirical studies in human-AI decision making and to provide opportunities to generalize findings across diverse domains and experimental settings.

@en

AI systems are increasingly incorporated into human decision-making. Yet, human decision-makers are often affected by their cognitive biases. In critical settings, such as medical diagnosis, criminal judgment, or information consumption, these cognitive biases hinder optimal decision outcomes, thereby resulting in dangerous decisions and negative societal impact. The use of AI systems can amplify and exacerbate cognitive biases in their users. In this workshop, we seek to foster discussions on ongoing research around cognitive biases in human-AI collaboration and identify future research directions to understand, quantify, and mitigate the effects of cognitive biases. We will explore cognitive biases appearing in various contexts of human-AI collaboration: what can cause them?; how can we measure, model, mitigate, and manage cognitive biases?; and how can we utilise cognitive biases for the greater good? We will reflect on workshop discussions to form a research community around cognitive biases and bias-aware systems.

@en

AI systems are increasingly being used to support human decision making. It is important that AI advice is followed appropriately. However, according to existing literature, users typically under-rely or over-rely on AI systems, and this leads to sub-optimal team performance. In this context, we investigate the role of stated system accuracy by contrasting the lack of system information with the presence of system accuracy in a loan prediction task. We explore how the degree to which humans understand system accuracy influences their reliance on the AI system, by investigating numeracy levels and with the aid of analogies to explain system accuracy in a first of its kind between-subjects study (N=281). We found that explaining the stated accuracy of a system using analogies failed to help users rely on the AI systemappropriately (i.e., the tendency of users to rely on the system when the system is correct, or on themselves otherwise). To eliminate the impact of subjective attitudes towards analogy domains, we conducted a within-subjects study (N=248) where each participant worked on tasks with analogy-based explanations from different domains. Results from this second study confirmed that explaining stated accuracy of the system with analogies was not sufficient to facilitate appropriate reliance on the AI system in the context of loan prediction tasks, irrespective of individual user differences. Based on our findings from the two studies, we reason that the under-reliance on the AI system may be a result of users' overestimation of their own ability to solve the given task. Thus, although familiar analogies can be effective in improving the intelligibility of stated accuracy of the system, an improved understanding of system accuracy does not necessarily lead to improved system reliance and team performance.

@en

With recent advances in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), researchers have started to pay attention to concept-level explanations, which explain model predictions with a high level of abstraction. However, such explanations may be difficult to digest for laypeople due to the potential knowledge gap and the concomitant cognitive load. Inspired by recent work, we argue that analogy-based explanations composed of commonsense knowledge may be a potential solution to tackle this issue. In this paper, we propose analogical inference as a bridge to help end-users leverage their commonsense knowledge to better understand the concept-level explanations. Specifically, we design an effective analogy-based explanation generation method and collect 600 analogy-based explanations from 100 crowd workers. Furthermore, we propose a set of structured dimensions for the qualitative assessment of analogy-based explanations and conduct an empirical evaluation of the generated analogies with experts. Our findings reveal significant positive correlations between the qualitative dimensions of analogies and the perceived helpfulness of analogy-based explanations. These insights can inform the design of future methods for the generation of effective analogy-based explanations. We also find that the understanding of commonsense explanations varies with the experience of the recipient user, which points out the need for further work on personalization when leveraging commonsense explanations. @en

Knowledge base question answering (KBQA) aims to answer a question over a knowledge base (KB). Early studies mainly focused on answering simple questions over KBs and achieved great success. However, their performances on complex questions are still far from satisfactory. Therefore, in recent years, researchers propose a large number of novel methods, which looked into the challenges of answering complex questions. In this survey, we review recent advances in KBQA with the focus on solving complex questions, which usually contain multiple subjects, express compound relations, or involve numerical operations. In detail, we begin with introducing the complex KBQA task and relevant background. Then, we present two mainstream categories of methods for complex KBQA, namely semantic parsing-based (SP-based) methods and information retrieval-based (IR-based) methods. Specifically, we illustrate their procedures with flow designs and discuss their difference and similarity. Next, we summarize the challenges that these two categories of methods encounter when answering complex questions, and explicate advanced solutions as well as techniques used in existing work. After that, we discuss the potential impact of pre-trained language models (PLMs) on complex KBQA. To help readers catch up with SOTA methods, we also provide a comprehensive evaluation and resource about complex KBQA task. Finally, we conclude and discuss several promising directions related to complex KBQA for future research.

@en

Access to commonsense knowledge is receiving renewed interest for developing neuro-symbolic AI systems, or debugging deep learning models. Little is currently understood about the types of knowledge that can be gathered using existing knowledge elicitation methods. Moreover, these methods fall short of meeting the evolving requirements of several downstream AI tasks. To this end, collecting broad and tacit knowledge, in addition to negative or discriminative knowledge can be highly useful. Addressing this research gap, we developed a novel game with a purpose, 'FindItOut', to elicit different types of knowledge from human players through easily configurable game mechanics. We recruited 125 players from a crowdsourcing platform, who played 2430 rounds, resulting in the creation of more than 150k tuples of knowledge. Through an extensive evaluation of these tuples, we show that FindItOut can successfully result in the creation of plural knowledge with a good player experience. We evaluate the efficiency of the game (over 10 × higher than a reference baseline) and the usefulness of the resulting knowledge, through the lens of two downstream tasks - commonsense question answering and the identification of discriminative attributes. Finally, we present a rigorous qualitative analysis of the tuples' characteristics, that informs the future use of FindItOut across various researcher and practitioner communities.

@en