不同不确定性水平下人工智能与逻辑式解释对用户决策的影响

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Federico Maria Cau, H. Hauptmann, L. D. Spano, N. Tintarev
{"title":"不同不确定性水平下人工智能与逻辑式解释对用户决策的影响","authors":"Federico Maria Cau, H. Hauptmann, L. D. Spano, N. Tintarev","doi":"10.1145/3588320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Existing eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques support people in interpreting AI advice. However, while previous work evaluates the users’ understanding of explanations, factors influencing the decision support are largely overlooked in the literature. This paper addresses this gap by studying the impact of user uncertainty, AI correctness, and the interaction between AI uncertainty and explanation logic-styles, for classification tasks. We conducted two separate studies: one requesting participants to recognise hand-written digits and one to classify the sentiment of reviews. To assess the decision making, we analysed the task performance, agreement with the AI suggestion, and the user’s reliance on the XAI interface elements. Participants make their decision relying on three pieces of information in the XAI interface (image or text instance, AI prediction, and explanation). Participants were shown one explanation style (between-participants design): according to three styles of logical reasoning (inductive, deductive, and abductive). This allowed us to study how different levels of AI uncertainty influence the effectiveness of different explanation styles. The results show that user uncertainty and AI correctness on predictions significantly affected users’ classification decisions considering the analysed metrics. In both domains (images and text), users relied mainly on the instance to decide. Users were usually overconfident about their choices, and this evidence was more pronounced for text. Furthermore, the inductive style explanations led to over-reliance on the AI advice in both domains – it was the most persuasive, even when the AI was incorrect. The abductive and deductive styles have complex effects depending on the domain and the AI uncertainty levels.","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of AI and Logic-Style Explanations on Users’ Decisions under Different Levels of Uncertainty\",\"authors\":\"Federico Maria Cau, H. Hauptmann, L. D. Spano, N. Tintarev\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3588320\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Existing eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques support people in interpreting AI advice. However, while previous work evaluates the users’ understanding of explanations, factors influencing the decision support are largely overlooked in the literature. This paper addresses this gap by studying the impact of user uncertainty, AI correctness, and the interaction between AI uncertainty and explanation logic-styles, for classification tasks. We conducted two separate studies: one requesting participants to recognise hand-written digits and one to classify the sentiment of reviews. To assess the decision making, we analysed the task performance, agreement with the AI suggestion, and the user’s reliance on the XAI interface elements. Participants make their decision relying on three pieces of information in the XAI interface (image or text instance, AI prediction, and explanation). Participants were shown one explanation style (between-participants design): according to three styles of logical reasoning (inductive, deductive, and abductive). This allowed us to study how different levels of AI uncertainty influence the effectiveness of different explanation styles. The results show that user uncertainty and AI correctness on predictions significantly affected users’ classification decisions considering the analysed metrics. In both domains (images and text), users relied mainly on the instance to decide. Users were usually overconfident about their choices, and this evidence was more pronounced for text. Furthermore, the inductive style explanations led to over-reliance on the AI advice in both domains – it was the most persuasive, even when the AI was incorrect. The abductive and deductive styles have complex effects depending on the domain and the AI uncertainty levels.\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3588320\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3588320","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

现有的可解释人工智能(XAI)技术支持人们解释人工智能的建议。然而,虽然以前的研究评估了用户对解释的理解,但文献中很大程度上忽视了影响决策支持的因素。本文通过研究用户不确定性、人工智能正确性以及人工智能不确定性与解释逻辑风格之间的交互对分类任务的影响来解决这一差距。我们进行了两项独立的研究:一项要求参与者识别手写的数字,另一项要求参与者对评论的情绪进行分类。为了评估决策,我们分析了任务执行情况、与AI建议的一致性以及用户对XAI界面元素的依赖程度。参与者根据XAI界面中的三个信息(图像或文本实例、AI预测和解释)做出决策。参与者被展示了一种解释风格(参与者之间的设计):根据三种逻辑推理风格(归纳、演绎和溯因)。这使我们能够研究不同程度的人工智能不确定性如何影响不同解释风格的有效性。结果表明,考虑所分析的指标,用户的不确定性和人工智能对预测的正确性显著影响用户的分类决策。在这两个领域(图像和文本)中,用户主要依靠实例来决定。用户通常对自己的选择过于自信,这一点在文本方面表现得更为明显。此外,归纳式解释导致在这两个领域过度依赖人工智能的建议——它是最有说服力的,即使人工智能是不正确的。溯因和演绎风格具有复杂的影响,取决于领域和人工智能的不确定性水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of AI and Logic-Style Explanations on Users’ Decisions under Different Levels of Uncertainty
Existing eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques support people in interpreting AI advice. However, while previous work evaluates the users’ understanding of explanations, factors influencing the decision support are largely overlooked in the literature. This paper addresses this gap by studying the impact of user uncertainty, AI correctness, and the interaction between AI uncertainty and explanation logic-styles, for classification tasks. We conducted two separate studies: one requesting participants to recognise hand-written digits and one to classify the sentiment of reviews. To assess the decision making, we analysed the task performance, agreement with the AI suggestion, and the user’s reliance on the XAI interface elements. Participants make their decision relying on three pieces of information in the XAI interface (image or text instance, AI prediction, and explanation). Participants were shown one explanation style (between-participants design): according to three styles of logical reasoning (inductive, deductive, and abductive). This allowed us to study how different levels of AI uncertainty influence the effectiveness of different explanation styles. The results show that user uncertainty and AI correctness on predictions significantly affected users’ classification decisions considering the analysed metrics. In both domains (images and text), users relied mainly on the instance to decide. Users were usually overconfident about their choices, and this evidence was more pronounced for text. Furthermore, the inductive style explanations led to over-reliance on the AI advice in both domains – it was the most persuasive, even when the AI was incorrect. The abductive and deductive styles have complex effects depending on the domain and the AI uncertainty levels.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信