When Classification Errors Preserve Correct Recommendations: The Structural Mechanism and Effects of Inadvertent Safeguards in AI Decision Support.

IF 3.6 3区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Jin Yong Kim, X Jessie Yang
{"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.

当分类错误保留正确的建议:人工智能决策支持中无意保障的结构机制和影响。
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
Human Factors
Human Factors 管理科学-行为科学
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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