The Effect of Communicating AI Confidence on Human Decision Making When Performing a Binary Decision Task
Source abstract
Abstract
In this study, we experimentally analyzed whether people can perceive the accuracy or smartness of AI judgments, and whether the judgment accuracy of AI and the level of confidence in those judgments affect people’s decision-making. The results showed that people may perceive an AI’s smartness even when it only presents information on the results of its judgments. The results also suggest that AI accuracy and confidence affect human decision-making, and that the magnitude of the effect of AI confidence varies with AI accuracy. We also found that when a person’s ability to make a decision is less than or equal to the AI’s ability to make a decision, the human performance in a binary decision task improves regardless of AI accuracy. The results obtained in this study are similar in some respects to relationships in which people make decisions while interacting, and the findings from research on human interactions may apply to the research and development of human–AI interactions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Cognitive Science and Mapping · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saga University, Saga 840-8502, Japan
Funding
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science research fellowship
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. Maslej, N., Fattorini, L., Brynjolfsson, E., Etchemendy, J., Ligett, K., Lyons, T., Manyika, J., Ngo, H., Niebles, J.C., and Parli, V. (2023). Artificial intelligence index report 2023. arXiv.
2. Chui, M., Hall, B., Mayhew, H., Singla, A., and Sukharevsky, A. (2024, April 03). The State of AI in 2022 and a Half Decade in Review. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai-in-2022-and-a-half-decade-in-review#/.
3. Ienca, M., and Vayena, E. (2020). Ai ethics guidelines: European and global perspectives. Towards Regul. AI Syst., 38–60.
4. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 ↗
5. Wang, H., Wang, Z., Du, M., Yang, F., Zhang, Z., Ding, S., Mardziel, P., and Hu, X. (2020, January 13–19). Score-CAM: Score-Weighted Visual Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, Seattle, WA, USA.10.1109/CVPRW50498.2020.00020 ↗
6. Generating visual explanations with natural language10.1002/ail2.55 ↗
7. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 ↗
8. Degen, H., and Ntoa, S. Requirements for Explainability and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Collaborative Work. Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence in HCI.
9. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, New York, NY, USA. KDD ’16.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
10. Guyon, I., Luxburg, U.V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., and Garnett, R. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
11. Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Human Decision Support System in the Medical Domain10.3390/make3030037 ↗
12. Sutthithatip, S., Perinpanayagam, S., Aslam, S., and Wileman, A. (2021, January 3–7). Explainable AI in Aerospace for Enhanced System Performance. Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/AIAA 40th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), San Antonio, TX, USA.10.1109/DASC52595.2021.9594488 ↗
13. Wang, X., and Yin, M. (2021, January 9). Are Explanations Helpful? A Comparative Study of the Effects of Explanations in AI-Assisted Decision-Making. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, New York, NY, USA. IUI ’21.10.1145/3397481.3450650 ↗
14. Confidence in Dyadic Decision Making: The Role of Individual Differences10.1002/bdm.1927 ↗
15. XHLULU (2024, February 19). 140k Real and Fake Faces. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/xhlulu/140k-real-and-fake-faces/data.
16. A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks10.1109/TPAMI.2020.2970919 ↗
17. Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Beygelzimer, A., d’Alché-Buc, F., Fox, E., and Garnett, R. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
18. Chen, L., Li, S., Bai, Q., Yang, J., Jiang, S., and Miao, Y. (2021). Review of Image Classification Algorithms Based on Convolutional Neural Networks. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13224712 ↗
19. Taye, M.M. (2023). Theoretical Understanding of Convolutional Neural Network: Concepts, Architectures, Applications, Future Directions. Computation, 11.10.3390/computation11030052 ↗
20. When Are Two Heads Better than One and Why?10.1126/science.1216549 ↗
21. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644 ↗
22. Group Problem Solving10.1080/00224545.1955.9714255 ↗
23. Optimally Interacting Minds10.1126/science.1185718 ↗