Cited by 15Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyEthics and Social Impacts of AI

On the Interdependence of Reliance Behavior and Accuracy in AI-Assisted Decision-Making

Open access
Schoeffer, Jakob, Jakubik, Johannes, Voessing, Michael, Kuehl, Niklas, Satzger, Gerhard·2023·Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Abstract

In AI-assisted decision-making, a central promise of putting a human in the loop is that they should be able to complement the AI system by adhering to its correct and overriding its mistaken recommendations. In practice, however, we often see that humans tend to over- or under-rely on AI recommendations, meaning that they either adhere to wrong or override correct recommendations. Such reliance behavior is detrimental to decision-making accuracy. In this work, we articulate and analyze the interdependence between reliance behavior and accuracy in AI-assisted decision-making, which has been largely neglected in prior work. We also propose a visual framework to make this interdependence more tangible. This framework helps us interpret and compare empirical findings, as well as obtain a nuanced understanding of the effects of interventions (e.g., explanations) in AI-assisted decision-making. Finally, we infer several interesting properties from the framework: (i) when humans under-rely on AI recommendations, there may be no possibility for them to complement the AI in terms of decision-making accuracy; (ii) when humans cannot discern correct and wrong AI recommendations, no such improvement can be expected either; (iii) interventions may lead to an increase in decision-making accuracy that is solely driven by an increase in humans’ adherence to AI recommendations, without any ability to discern correct and wrong. Our work emphasizes the importance of measuring and reporting both effects on accuracy and reliance behavior when empirically assessing interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/faia230074

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 15

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Samir Passi and Mihaela Vorvoreanu. Overreliance on AI: Literature review. Tech- nical Report MSR-TR-2022-12. Microsoft, 2022.
  2. Heliodoro Tejeda, Aakriti Kumar, Padhraic Smyth, and Mark Steyvers. AI-assisted decision-making: A cognitive modeling approach to infer latent reliance strategies. Computational Brain & Behavior, pages 1-18, 2022.
  3. Jakob Schoeffer, Maria De-Arteaga, and Niklas Kuehl. On explanations, fair- ness, and appropriate reliance in human-AI decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11812, 2022. · arXiv
  4. Patrick Hemmer, Max Schemmer, Michael Voessing, and Niklas Kuehl. Human- AI complementarity in hybrid intelligence systems: A structured literature review. PACIS, page 78, 2021.
  5. Hussein Mozannar and David Sontag. Consistent estimators for learning to defer to an expert. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7076-7087. PMLR, 2020.
  6. Zhuoran Lu and Ming Yin. Human reliance on machine learning models when performance feedback is limited: Heuristics and risks. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-16, 2021.
  7. Zana Buc ¸inca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. To trust or to think: Cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision- making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1): 1-21, 2021.
  8. Zahra Ashktorab, Michael Desmond, Josh Andres, Michael Muller, Narendra Nath Joshi, Michelle Brachman, Aabhas Sharma, Kristina Brimijoin, Qian Pan, Chris- tine T Wolf, et al. AI-assisted human labeling: Batching for efficiency without over- reliance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1): 1-27, 2021.
  9. Antino Kim, Mochen Yang, and Jingjing Zhang. When algorithms err: Differential impact of early vs. late errors on users' reliance on algorithms. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 30(1):1-36, 2023.
  10. Johannes Jakubik, Jakob Schoeffer, Vincent Hoge, Michael Voessing, and Niklas Kuehl. An empirical evaluation of predicted outcomes as explanations in human-AI decision-making. In Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases: International Workshops of ECML PKDD 2022, Greno- ble, France, September 19-23, 2022, Proceedings, Part I, pages 353-368. Springer, 2023.

Authors
Schoeffer, J., Jakubik, J., Voessing, M., Kuehl, N., & Satzger, G.
Affiliations
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany
  • University of Bayreuth (DE)
Corresponding author
Schoeffer, Jakob
Venue
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
Publisher
IOS Press
Published
2023-06-22
ISSN
  • 0922-6389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-8314
OpenAlex
W4381741701
Cited by
15
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
7.75
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • KITopen
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
AI-assisted decision-making, human-AI interaction, decision accuracy, human-in-the-loop, AI explanations, intervention effects, visual framework, human-AI collaboration

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