Investigating User Confidence for Uncertainty Presentation in Predictive Decision Making
Abstract
Machine Learning (ML) based decision support systems are often like a black box to non-expert users. Here user's confidence becomes critical for effective decision making and maintaining trust in the system. We find that user confidence varies significantly depending on supplementary material presented on screen. We investigate change in user confidence (in the context of ML based decision making) by varying level of uncertainty presented (in an online water-pipe failure prediction case study) and find that all 26 subjects rated higher uncertainty task to be most difficult and had lowest user confidence in predictive decisions of the same. This agrees with our expectation that increased uncertainty would reduce user confidence in predictive decision making. However, ML-researchers subgroup reported being most confident when uncertainty with known probability was presented, whereas other subgroups (viz. general staff and non-ML researchers) appeared most confident when uncertainty was not at all presented. This is an original research to improve understanding of user's decision making confidence with respect to uncertainty presented in machine learning context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The ML literature has only just begun to examine how uncertainty estimates affect user interactions with ML models and task performance.
“The ML literature has only just begun to examine how uncertainty estimates affect user interactions with ML models and task performance [4,138].”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [4]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 24 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Arshad, S. Z., Zhou, J., Bridon, C., Chen, F., & Wang, Y.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Data61 (AU)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-12-07
- Pages
- 352-360
- OpenAlex
- W2215157235
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 1.13
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Asian Office of Aerospace Research & Development (FA2386-14-1-0022 AOARD 134131)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
- Keywords
- user confidence, predictive decision-making, explainable AI, trust in AI, uncertainty quantification, user subgroups, non-expert users
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review