{"title":"When Classification Errors Preserve Correct Recommendations: The Structural Mechanism and Effects of Inadvertent Safeguards in AI Decision Support.","authors":"Jin Yong Kim, X Jessie Yang","doi":"10.1177/00187208261491447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveWe examine AI-assisted tasks in which <i>inadvertent safeguards</i> can occur. An inadvertent safeguard refers to a counterintuitive scenario in which an AI error at the diagnosis/classification stage nevertheless produces a correct downstream decision recommendation. In this paper, we analyze the structural relationship between the AI's classification space and its recommendation outputs. We formalize the conditions under which inadvertent safeguards arise and compare the performance implications of Stage 3 action-selection support versus Stage 2 information-analysis support.BackgroundRecent research in human-automation and human-AI interaction has allowed for the structural possibility of inadvertent safeguards. However, this phenomenon has not been explicitly theorized or systematically examined.MethodWe first characterized the structural conditions under which inadvertent safeguards arise. We then conducted an experiment in which 90 participants completed a mental rotation task with a simulated AI decision aid that provided either Stage 2 information-analysis support or Stage 3 action-selection support.ResultsWhen inadvertent safeguards occur, Stage 3 action-selection support produced better performance, faster responses, and more positive trust adjustment than Stage 2 information-analysis support. Overall, Stage 3 action-selection support also produced higher perceived reliability, post-condition trust, and usability ratings.ConclusionThe impact of AI errors depends not only on classification accuracy but also on the mapping structure between classifications and actions. Many-to-one mappings, together with misclassifications between recommendation-equivalent states, can preserve correct downstream recommendations despite classification errors.ApplicationDesigners should distinguish classification accuracy from recommendation accuracy when evaluating Stage 3 action-selection support, especially in domains where multiple states can map to the same action.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":" ","pages":"187208261491447"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208261491447","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ObjectiveWe examine AI-assisted tasks in which inadvertent safeguards can occur. An inadvertent safeguard refers to a counterintuitive scenario in which an AI error at the diagnosis/classification stage nevertheless produces a correct downstream decision recommendation. In this paper, we analyze the structural relationship between the AI's classification space and its recommendation outputs. We formalize the conditions under which inadvertent safeguards arise and compare the performance implications of Stage 3 action-selection support versus Stage 2 information-analysis support.BackgroundRecent research in human-automation and human-AI interaction has allowed for the structural possibility of inadvertent safeguards. However, this phenomenon has not been explicitly theorized or systematically examined.MethodWe first characterized the structural conditions under which inadvertent safeguards arise. We then conducted an experiment in which 90 participants completed a mental rotation task with a simulated AI decision aid that provided either Stage 2 information-analysis support or Stage 3 action-selection support.ResultsWhen inadvertent safeguards occur, Stage 3 action-selection support produced better performance, faster responses, and more positive trust adjustment than Stage 2 information-analysis support. Overall, Stage 3 action-selection support also produced higher perceived reliability, post-condition trust, and usability ratings.ConclusionThe impact of AI errors depends not only on classification accuracy but also on the mapping structure between classifications and actions. Many-to-one mappings, together with misclassifications between recommendation-equivalent states, can preserve correct downstream recommendations despite classification errors.ApplicationDesigners should distinguish classification accuracy from recommendation accuracy when evaluating Stage 3 action-selection support, especially in domains where multiple states can map to the same action.
期刊介绍:
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.