Retrospective End-User Walkthrough: A Method for Assessing How People Combine Multiple AI Models in Decision-Making Systems
May 12, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Vagner Figueredo de Santana, Larissa Monteiro Da Fonseca Galeno, Emilio Vital Brazil, Aliza Heching, Renato Cerqueira
arXiv ID
2305.07530
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Citations
0
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Evaluating human-AI decision-making systems is an emerging challenge as new ways of combining multiple AI models towards a specific goal are proposed every day. As humans interact with AI in decision-making systems, multiple factors may be present in a task including trust, interpretability, and explainability, amongst others. In this context, this work proposes a retrospective method to support a more holistic understanding of how people interact with and connect multiple AI models and combine multiple outputs in human-AI decision-making systems. The method consists of employing a retrospective end-user walkthrough with the objective of providing support to HCI practitioners so that they may gain an understanding of the higher order cognitive processes in place and the role that AI model outputs play in human-AI decision-making. The method was qualitatively assessed with 29 participants (four participants in a pilot phase; 25 participants in the main user study) interacting with a human-AI decision-making system in the context of financial decision-making. The system combines visual analytics, three AI models for revenue prediction, AI-supported analogues analysis, and hypothesis testing using external news and natural language processing to provide multiple means for comparing companies. Beyond results on tasks and usability problems, outcomes presented suggest that the method is promising in highlighting why AI models are ignored, used, or trusted, and how future interactions are planned. We suggest that HCI practitioners researching human-AI interaction can benefit by adding this step to user studies in a debriefing stage as a retrospective Thinking-Aloud protocol would be applied, but with emphasis on revisiting tasks and understanding why participants ignored or connected predictions while performing a task.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted