Explanation type and appropriate reliance in AI-assisted patent evaluation: an exploratory study across user domain familiarity.

IF 2.8 3区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
Jane Lee, Jaehoo Bae, Eunseo Ryu, Leehee Kim, Dain Kim, Sungjoo Lee, Myung Hwan Yun
{"title":"Explanation type and appropriate reliance in AI-assisted patent evaluation: an exploratory study across user domain familiarity.","authors":"Jane Lee, Jaehoo Bae, Eunseo Ryu, Leehee Kim, Dain Kim, Sungjoo Lee, Myung Hwan Yun","doi":"10.1080/00140139.2026.2731219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Explainable AI (XAI) aims to foster appropriate reliance, but its effectiveness may depend on users' domain familiarity. We conducted an exploratory study of a simplified patent-evaluation task representative of consequential decision-support settings, comparing a feature-based (SHAP) and an example-based (two-case contrastive) explanation display with 9 domain-familiar and 24 lay participants. In both groups, the example-based condition showed a significant within-condition improvement of final over initial decisions on the same items, with no detected difference in gains between conditions. Among domain-familiar participants, switching to correct AI advice given disagreement was substantially lower under the feature-based than the example-based display, despite their stated preference for the feature-based format; among lay participants, no differences in switching to correct AI advice were detected once disagreement opportunities were considered. These findings caution against preference-driven XAI design: the display domain-familiar users preferred was the one under which they most often discarded correct AI advice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50503,"journal":{"name":"Ergonomics","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2026.2731219","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to foster appropriate reliance, but its effectiveness may depend on users' domain familiarity. We conducted an exploratory study of a simplified patent-evaluation task representative of consequential decision-support settings, comparing a feature-based (SHAP) and an example-based (two-case contrastive) explanation display with 9 domain-familiar and 24 lay participants. In both groups, the example-based condition showed a significant within-condition improvement of final over initial decisions on the same items, with no detected difference in gains between conditions. Among domain-familiar participants, switching to correct AI advice given disagreement was substantially lower under the feature-based than the example-based display, despite their stated preference for the feature-based format; among lay participants, no differences in switching to correct AI advice were detected once disagreement opportunities were considered. These findings caution against preference-driven XAI design: the display domain-familiar users preferred was the one under which they most often discarded correct AI advice.

人工智能辅助专利评估中的解释类型和适当依赖:跨用户领域熟悉度的探索性研究。
可解释AI (XAI)旨在培养适当的依赖,但其有效性可能取决于用户对领域的熟悉程度。我们对一个简化的专利评估任务进行了探索性研究,比较了基于特征(SHAP)和基于实例(两例对比)的解释显示,共有9名领域熟悉的参与者和24名非专业参与者。在两组中,基于实例的条件在相同项目上的最终决定比初始决定显示出显著的条件内改善,在不同条件之间的收益没有发现差异。在领域熟悉的参与者中,尽管他们表示更喜欢基于特征的格式,但在基于特征的显示下,在存在分歧的情况下切换到正确的人工智能建议的比例明显低于基于示例的显示;在非专业参与者中,一旦考虑到不同的机会,在转向正确的人工智能建议方面没有发现差异。这些发现提醒我们不要使用偏好驱动的XAI设计:熟悉显示领域的用户最喜欢的是他们最经常放弃正确AI建议的显示领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ergonomics
Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
147
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Ergonomics, also known as human factors, is the scientific discipline that seeks to understand and improve human interactions with products, equipment, environments and systems. Drawing upon human biology, psychology, engineering and design, Ergonomics aims to develop and apply knowledge and techniques to optimise system performance, whilst protecting the health, safety and well-being of individuals involved. The attention of ergonomics extends across work, leisure and other aspects of our daily lives. The journal Ergonomics is an international refereed publication, with a 60 year tradition of disseminating high quality research. Original submissions, both theoretical and applied, are invited from across the subject, including physical, cognitive, organisational and environmental ergonomics. Papers reporting the findings of research from cognate disciplines are also welcome, where these contribute to understanding equipment, tasks, jobs, systems and environments and the corresponding needs, abilities and limitations of people. All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书