The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 84 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) in decision support systems has disproportionately focused on technological advancements, often overlooking the alignment between algorithmic outputs and human expectations. A human-centered perspective attempts to alleviate this concern by designing AI solutions for seamless integration with existing processes. Determining what information AI should provide to aid humans is vital, a concept underscored by explainable AI's efforts to justify AI predictions. However, how the information is presented, e.g., the sequence of recommendations and solicitation of interpretations, is equally crucial as complex interactions may emerge between humans and AI. While empirical studies have evaluated human-AI dynamics across domains, a common vocabulary for human-AI interaction protocols is lacking. To promote more deliberate consideration of interaction designs, we introduce a taxonomy of interaction patterns that delineate various modes of human-AI interactivity. We summarize the results of a systematic review of AI-assisted decision making literature and identify trends and opportunities in existing interactions across application domains from 105 articles. We find that current interactions are dominated by simplistic collaboration paradigms, leading to little support for truly interactive functionality. Our taxonomy offers a tool to understand interactivity with AI in decision-making and foster interaction designs for achieving clear communication, trustworthiness, and collaboration.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
This systematic review of 105 empirical studies proposes a taxonomy of interaction patterns for AI-assisted decision making. It finds that current human-AI interactions are dominated by simple AI-first and AI-follow assistance, with limited support for more interactive collaboration.
Key findings
- Across 105 articles and 131 interaction sequences, AI-first assistance was most common (n = 67), followed by AI-follow assistance (n = 28); AI solutions were accompanied by additional information in 81% and 68% of those patterns, respectively.
- More interactive patterns were less frequent: Request-driven AI assistance (n = 25; 14 for direct solution, 13 for support information), Secondary assistance (n = 16), User-guided interactive adjustments (n = 9), Delegation (n = 9), and AI-guided dialogic user engagement (n = 6, of which 5 were conversational).
- Domains included healthcare (26/108), generic tasks (20/108), finance/business (15/108), and law (6/108); most evaluations used non-expert users (60/108), and less than 15% used artificial tasks. AI systems were simulated/Wizard of Oz (39/105), deep learning-based (34/105), or shallow models (35/105).
- The taxonomy comprises seven interaction patterns—AI-first assistance, AI-follow assistance, Secondary assistance, Request-driven AI assistance, AI-guided dialogic user engagement, User-guided interactive adjustments, and Delegation—plus an “Others” category.
Methods
- Systematic review of empirical human-AI decision-making studies from 2013 to June 2023 across ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Compendex, Scopus, and PubMed; the initial search returned 3,770 papers, 358 duplicates were removed, 3,412 were screened, and 105 articles were included.
- Inclusion required complete decision-making tasks, an implemented interface for human-AI interaction, screen-based/virtual/non-embodied setups, and empirical user studies; robotics, gaming, short papers (<8 pages), non-peer-reviewed works, and reviews/surveys were excluded.
- Data extraction coded context, AI system, and interaction building blocks (action-output pairs); interaction sequences were grouped iteratively into the taxonomy, and pattern frequency was quantified via automated search plus manual inspection.
Limitations
- Stated: search terminology may have excluded relevant work if interaction design was not explicitly mentioned; publication bias is possible; including only one healthcare-focused database alongside general databases may limit observed domain frequencies; analysis was restricted to screen-based interfaces; strict complete-decision-task criteria were used; some papers lacked sufficient interface detail for full recreation; and further use-case evaluations are needed to assess the taxonomy’s utility.
- Evident from the text: because interaction patterns are not mutually exclusive and the taxonomy was iteratively refined by the authors, category assignments may involve subjective interpretation.
- Evident from the text: the corpus ends in June 2023, so newer interaction patterns or studies published after that date are not represented.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 45 Not checked · 126 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human-AI interactions in AI-advised decision makings in the healthcare domain mostly adhered to the AI-first assistance pattern (n = 14), followed by Secondary assistance (n = 7).”
§ Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review > Domain Decision making task Total tasks
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified one interaction that supported AI-guided dialogic user engagement, three interactions in the User-guided interactive adjustments, and one in which delegation was an option.”
§ Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review > Domain Decision making task Total tasks
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We present seven categories of interaction patterns that we have identified in our corpus, illustrated in Figure 1.”
§ Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A check of a cited source is scheduled, or we don’t hold its full text yet; the claim is checked once it runs.
In the paper
“For instance, manipulations of the inputs result in new AI's outcome computations for exploratory purposes (Liu et al., 2021;Gu et al., 2023;Nguyen et al., 2018;Zytek et al., 2022;Suresh et al., 2022).”
§ Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review > . Identification of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making studies
What the sources say
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though we identified multiple decision making tasks in applications that require a specialized population, where recruiting large numbers of participants is often challenging, the majority of human-AI interactions have been evaluated with non-expert uses (60/108).”
§ Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review > Domain Decision making task Total tasks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
81 more claims
Create a free account to see all 171 claims and to verify the 77 references still open.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 73
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“The type of AI systems behind the interactions with users in the studies that covered these decision-making tasks were distributed among three categories: simulated models or Wizard of Oz experiments (39/105), deep learning-based models (34/105), and shallow models (35/105).”
§ Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review > Domain Decision making task Total tasks
Reported 105 · recomputed 108
Citations
Cites
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195 · cited 1×
“We searched for relevant articles from five databases that cover Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) studies and related disciplines and selected 105 to conduct a detailed coding and analysis of the sequences of interactions that exist between humans and AI.”
Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09692 · Cited by 1,124 · cited 3×
“…the decision making problem, we observe cases ( n = 10) in which users are given the ability to control when they want to receive the AI assistance via a request (Khadpe et al., 2020; Mackeprang et al., 2019; Baudel et al., 2021; Molina and Sundar, 2022; Gomez et al., 2023; Buçinca et al., 2021).”
Power to the People: The Role of Humans in Interactive Machine Learning
Amershi, S., Cakmak, M., Knox, W. B., & Kulesza, T. (2014) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513 · Cited by 1,084
Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Role of Interaction in Information Visualization
Yi, J. S., Kang, Y. A., Stasko, J., & Jacko, J. A. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2007.70515 · Cited by 1,031
Human-computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition
Tschandl, P., Rinner, C., Apalla, Z., Argenziano, G., Codella, N., Halpern, A., Janda, M., Lallas, A., Longo, C., Malvehy, J., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0942-0 · Cited by 1,024
Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., & Bellamy, R. K. E. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372852 · Cited by 895
Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance
Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M. T., & Weld, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445717 · Cited by 757 · cited 2×
“…al., 2022; Riveiro and Thill, 2021, 2022; Lai et al., 2020; Bansal et al., 2021); question answering (Feng and Boyd-Graber, 2022; Silva et al., 2023; Bansal et al., 2021); speech classification (Tutul et al., 2021; Zhang and Lim, 2022) 20 Labeling Text labeling (Bernard et al., 2018; Schrills and…”
Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance
Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M. T., & Weld, D. S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.14779 · Cited by 754
Fügener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W. (2022) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2021.1079 · Cited by 478
Beyond Accuracy: The Role of Mental Models in Human-AI Team Performance
Bansal, G., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Lasecki, W. S., Weld, D. S., & Horvitz, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v7i1.5285 · Cited by 466
A Review of User Interface Design for Interactive Machine Learning
Dudley, J. J., & Kristensson, P. O. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3185517 · Cited by 343
Wang, X., & Yin, M. (2021) · 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3397481.3450650 · Cited by 320 · cited 2×
“…et al., 2022; Schemmer et al., 2023; Mackeprang et al., 2019); image labeling (Cau et al., 2023) 8 Law Recidivism prediction (Grgic-Hlaca et al., 2019; Wang and Yin, 2021; Alufaisan et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021); criminal referral decision (Zytek et al., 2022); penal sentence prediction (Kahr…”
Proxy tasks and subjective measures can be misleading in evaluating explainable AI systems
Buçinca, Z., Lin, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Glassman, E. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3377325.3377498 · Cited by 307
Chen, H., Gomez, C., Huang, C.-M., & Unberath, M. (2022) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00699-2 · Cited by 300
Self-citationExperimental evidence of effective human–AI collaboration in medical decision-making
Reverberi, C., Rigon, T., Solari, A., Hassan, C., Cherubini, P., GI Genius CADx Study Group, Antonelli, G., Awadie, H., Bernhofer, S., Carballal, S., et al. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-18751-2 · Cited by 281
Interactivity: A forgotten art?
Sims, R. (1997) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0747-5632(97)00004-6 · Cited by 260
Jacobs, M., Pradier, M. F., McCoy, T. H., Perlis, R. H., Doshi-Velez, F., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-021-01224-x · Cited by 247
How to Evaluate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Making? A Survey of Empirical Methodologies
Vereschak, O., Bailly, G., & Caramiaux, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3476068 · Cited by 229
Designing transparency for effective Human-AI collaboration
Vössing, M., Kühl, N., Lind, M., & Satzger, G. (2022) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10284-3 · Cited by 223
Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making
Rastogi, C., Zhang, Y., Wei, D., Varshney, K. R., Dhurandhar, A., & Tomsett, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512930 · Cited by 216
Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations
Schemmer, M., Kuehl, N., Benz, C., Bartos, A., & Satzger, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584066 · Cited by 208
Lai, V., Chen, C., Smith-Renner, A., Liao, Q. V., & Tan, C. (2023) · 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594087 · Cited by 204
Leichtmann, B., Humer, C., Hinterreiter, A., Streit, M., & Mara, M. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107539 · Cited by 200 · cited 1×
“This approach has been identified as the “sequential paradigm” (Tejeda et al., 2022) or “two-step workflow” (Fogliato et al., 2022) and has been commonly used to evaluate the human’s reliance on the AI’s advice.”
Conceptual Metaphors Impact Perceptions of Human-AI Collaboration
Khadpe, P., Krishna, R., Fei-Fei, L., Hancock, J. T., & Bernstein, M. S. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3415234 · Cited by 183
Naiseh, M., Al-Thani, D., Jiang, N., & Ali, R. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102941 · Cited by 170
Molina, M. D., & Sundar, S. S. (2022) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmac010 · Cited by 170
Panigutti, C., Beretta, A., Giannotti, F., & Pedreschi, D. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502104 · Cited by 165
Westphal, M., Vössing, M., Satzger, G., Yom‐Tov, G. B., & Rafaeli, A. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107714 · Cited by 161
The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human-machine interactions
Wen, W., & Imamizu, H. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6 · Cited by 160
Comparing Visual-Interactive Labeling with Active Learning: An Experimental Study
Bernard, J., Hutter, M., Zeppelzauer, M., Fellner, D. W., & Sedlmair, M. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2017.2744818 · Cited by 149
Human-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderation
Lai, V., Carton, S., Bhatnagar, R., Liao, Q. V., Zhang, Y., & Tan, C. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501999 · Cited by 145
A Human-AI Collaborative Approach for Clinical Decision Making on Rehabilitation Assessment
Lee, M. H., Siewiorek, D. P., Smailagic, A., Bernardino, A., & Bermúdez i Badia, S. B. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445472 · Cited by 137
Hou, Y. T.-Y., & Jung, M. F. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479864 · Cited by 136
How Cognitive Biases Affect XAI-assisted Decision-making: A Systematic Review
Bertrand, A., Belloum, R., Eagan, J. R., & Maxwell, W. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3514094.3534164 · Cited by 129
Sheu, R.-K., & Pardeshi, M. S. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22208068 · Cited by 129
BreastScreening-AI: Evaluating medical intelligent agents for human-AI interactions
Calisto, F. M., Santiago, C., Nunes, N., & Nascimento, J. C. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102285 · Cited by 125 · cited 2×
“Meanwhile, the support information at the user’s discretion was identified in eight cases (Calisto et al., 2022; Vössing et al., 2022; Suresh et al., 2020; van der Waa et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Molina and Sundar, 2022; Prabhudesai et al., 2023), for demanding explanations in particular.”
Hofeditz, L., Clausen, S., Rieß, A., Mirbabaie, M., & Stieglitz, S. (2022) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00600-9 · Cited by 124
"Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humans
Lai, V., Liu, H., & Tan, C. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376873 · Cited by 123
Dikmen, M., & Burns, C. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102792 · Cited by 116
Nourani, M., King, J., & Ragan, E. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v8i1.7469 · Cited by 116
Human Decision Making with Machine Assistance: An Experiment on Bailing and Jailing
Grgić-Hlača, N., Engel, C., & Gummadi, K. P. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359280 · Cited by 113
Smith-Renner, A., Fan, R., Birchfield, M., Wu, T., Boyd-Graber, J., Weld, D. S., & Findlater, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376624 · Cited by 112
Liu, H., Lai, V., & Tan, C. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479552 · Cited by 111
Anchoring Bias Affects Mental Model Formation and User Reliance in Explainable AI Systems
Nourani, M., Roy, C., Block, J. E., Honeycutt, D. R., Rahman, T., Ragan, E., & Gogate, V. (2021) · 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3397481.3450639 · Cited by 107 · cited 4×
“Following this initial judgment, the AI’s predicted outcome is presented and may accompanied by support information.”
InfluentialDoes Explainable Artificial Intelligence Improve Human Decision-Making?
Alufaisan, Y., Marusich, L. R., Bakdash, J. Z., Zhou, Y., & Kantarcioglu, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16819 · Cited by 106
Barda, A. J., Horvat, C. M., & Hochheiser, H. (2020) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-020-01276-x · Cited by 105
Silva, A., Schrum, M., Hedlund-Botti, E., Gopalan, N., & Gombolay, M. (2023) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2101698 · Cited by 104
“Who goes first? Influences of human-AI workflow on decision making in clinical imaging,”
Fogliato, R., Chappidi, S., Lungren, M., Fisher, P., Wilson, D., Fitzke, M., Parkinson, M., Horvitz, E., Inkpen, K., & Nushi, B. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533193 · Cited by 103
van Bekkum, M., de Boer, M., van Harmelen, F., Meyer-Vitali, A., & Teije, A. T. (2021) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-021-02394-3 · Cited by 98
Rechkemmer, A., & Yin, M. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501967 · Cited by 97
“Believe it or not: Designing a human-ai partnership for mixed-initiative fact-checking,”
Nguyen, A. T., Kharosekar, A., Krishnan, S., Krishnan, S., Tate, E., Wallace, B. C., & Lease, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3242587.3242666 · Cited by 95
Riveiro, M., & Thill, S. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103507 · Cited by 94
Hemmer, P., Westphal, M., Schemmer, M., Vetter, S., Vössing, M., & Satzger, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584052 · Cited by 93
Non-task expert physicians benefit from correct explainable AI advice when reviewing X-rays
Gaube, S., Suresh, H., Raue, M., Lermer, E., Koch, T. K., Hudecek, M. F. C., Ackery, A. D., Grover, S. C., Coughlin, J. F., Frey, D., et al. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-28633-w · Cited by 92
Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behavior
Cabrera, Á. A., Perer, A., & Hong, J. I. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579612 · Cited by 87
You Complete Me: Human-AI Teams and Complementary Expertise
Zhang, Q., Lee, M. L., & Carter, S. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517791 · Cited by 85
Who needs explanation and when? Juggling explainable AI and user epistemic uncertainty
Jiang, J., Kahai, S., & Yang, M. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102839 · Cited by 84
Prabhudesai, S., Yang, L., Asthana, S., Huan, X., Liao, Q. V., & Banovic, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584033 · Cited by 82
Human-AI Collaboration for UX Evaluation: Effects of Explanation and Synchronization
Fan, M., Yang, X., Yu, T., Liao, Q. V., & Zhao, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512943 · Cited by 81
To warrant clinical adoption AI models require a multi-faceted implementation evaluation
van de Sande, D., Chung, E. F. F., Oosterhoff, J., van Bommel, J., Gommers, D., & van Genderen, M. E. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01064-1 · Cited by 76
Understanding User Reliance on AI in Assisted Decision-Making
Cao, S., & Huang, C.-M. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555572 · Cited by 71
Self-citationDo I trust my machine teammate?: an investigation from perception to decision
Yu, K., Berkovsky, S., Taib, R., Zhou, J., & Chen, F. (2019) · Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3301275.3302277 · Cited by 71
Bertrand, A., Viard, T., Belloum, R., Eagan, J. R., & Maxwell, W. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581314 · Cited by 71
Capable but Amoral? Comparing AI and Human Expert Collaboration in Ethical Decision Making
Tolmeijer, S., Christen, M., Kandul, S., Kneer, M., & Bernstein, A. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517732 · Cited by 70
Second Chance for a First Impression? Trust Development in Intelligent System Interaction
Tolmeijer, S., Gadiraju, U., Ghantasala, R., Gupta, A., & Bernstein, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization · doi:10.1145/3450613.3456817 · Cited by 67
Towards relatable explainable AI with the perceptual process
Zhang, W., & Lim, B. Y. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501826 · Cited by 67
A Slow Algorithm Improves Users' Assessments of the Algorithm's Accuracy
Park, J. S., Barber, R., Kirlik, A., & Karahalios, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359204 · Cited by 65
Do Humans Trust Advice More if it Comes from AI?: An Analysis of Human-AI Interactions
Vodrahalli, K., Daneshjou, R., Gerstenberg, T., & Zou, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3514094.3534150 · Cited by 63
Zytek, A., Liu, D., Vaithianathan, R., & Veeramachaneni, K. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.3114864 · Cited by 62
Gu, H., Liang, Y., Xu, Y., Williams, C. K., Magaki, S., Khanlou, N., Vinters, H. V., Chen, Z., Ni, S., Yang, C., et al. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3577011 · Cited by 60
Effects of Uncertainty and Cognitive Load on User Trust in Predictive Decision Making
Zhou, J., Arshad, S. Z., Luo, S., & Chen, F. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_2 · Cited by 59
Bhattacharya, A., Ooge, J., Štiglic, G., & Verbert, K. (2023) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584075 · Cited by 59
Ambiguity-aware AI Assistants for Medical Data Analysis
Schaekermann, M., Beaton, G., Sanoubari, E., Lim, A. S. P., Larson, K. S., & Law, E. (2020) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376506 · Cited by 58
Kim, T., & Song, H. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2049134 · Cited by 58
Increasing the Speed and Accuracy of Data Labeling Through an AI Assisted Interface
Desmond, M., Muller, M. J., Ashktorab, Z., Dugan, C., Duesterwald, E., Brimijoin, K., Finegan‐Dollak, C., Brachman, M., Sharma, A., Joshi, N. N., et al. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3397481.3450698 · Cited by 57
Gupta, A., Basu, D., Ghantasala, R., Qiu, S., & Gadiraju, U. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 · doi:10.1145/3485447.3512248 · Cited by 57
Human-AI interaction: intermittent, continuous, and proactive
van Berkel, N., Skov, M. B., & Kjeldskov, J. (2021) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/3486941 · Cited by 55
AI-Assisted Decision-making: a Cognitive Modeling Approach to Infer Latent Reliance Strategies
Tejeda, H., Kumar, A., Smyth, P., & Steyvers, M. (2022) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-022-00157-y · Cited by 53
You’d Better Stop! Understanding Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models under Covariate Shift
Chiang, C.-W., & Yin, M. (2021) · 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 · doi:10.1145/3447535.3462487 · Cited by 53
Kahr, P. K., Rooks, G., Willemsen, M. C., & Snijders, C. C. P. (2023) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584058 · Cited by 52
Investigations of Performance and Bias in Human-AI Teamwork in Hiring
Peng, A., Nushi, B., Kıcıman, E., Inkpen, K. M., & Kamar, E. S. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i11.21468 · Cited by 51
Banas, J. A., Palomares, N. A., Richards, A. S., Keating, D. M., Joyce, N., & Rains, S. A. (2022) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/hqac010 · Cited by 50
Mitigating knowledge imbalance in AI-advised decision-making through collaborative user involvement
Gomez, C., Unberath, M., & Huang, C.-M. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102977 · Cited by 50
Self-citationMisplaced Trust: Measuring the Interference of Machine Learning in Human Decision-Making
Suresh, H., Lao, N., & Liccardi, I. (2020) · 12th ACM Conference on Web Science · doi:10.1145/3394231.3397922 · Cited by 49
Du, Y., Antoniadi, A. M., McNestry, C., McAuliffe, F. M., & Mooney, C. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app122010323 · Cited by 47
“Design patterns for exploring and prototyping human-robot interactions,”
Sauppé, A., & Mutlu, B. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557057 · Cited by 47
Hwang, J., Lee, T., Lee, H., & Byun, S. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/28659 · Cited by 47
Holstein, K., De‐Arteaga, M., Tumati, L., & Cheng, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579628 · Cited by 46
AI-Assisted Human Labeling: Batching for Efficiency without Overreliance
Ashktorab, Z., Desmond, M., Andres, J., Muller, M., Joshi, N. N., Brachman, M., Sharma, A., Brimijoin, K., Pan, Q., Wolf, C. T., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449163 · Cited by 45
Moral decision making in human-agent teams: human control and the role of explanations
van der Waa, J., Verdult, S., van den Bosch, K., van Diggelen, J., Haije, T., van der Stigchel, B., & Cocu, I. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.640647 · Cited by 45
Matthiesen, S., Diederichsen, S. Z., Hansen, M. K. H., Villumsen, C., Lassen, M. C. H., Jacobsen, P. K., Risum, N., Winkel, B. G., Philbert, B. T., Svendsen, J. H., et al. (2021) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/26964 · Cited by 45
Chiang, C.-W., & Yin, M. (2022) · 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3490099.3511121 · Cited by 42
Understanding the Role of Explanation Modality in AI-assisted Decision-making
Robbemond, V., Inel, O., & Gadiraju, U. (2022) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3503252.3531311 · Cited by 41
Mackeprang, M., Müller-Birn, C., & Stauss, M. T. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359297 · Cited by 39
Xiong, W., Wang, C., & Ma, L. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107556 · Cited by 39
Painting the Black Box White: Experimental Findings from Applying XAI to an ECG Reading Setting
Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., Natali, C., Parimbelli, E., Ronzio, L., & Cameli, M. (2023) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make5010017 · Cited by 37
Evaluating the impact of human explanation strategies on human-AI visual decision-making
Morrison, K., Shin, D., Holstein, K., & Perer, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579481 · Cited by 37
Bunde, E. (2021) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.154 · Cited by 36
Supporting High-Uncertainty Decisions through AI and Logic-Style Explanations
Cau, F. M., Hauptmann, H., Spano, L. D., & Tintarev, N. (2023) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584080 · Cited by 35
The relationship between performance and trust in AI in E-Finance
Maier, T., Menold, J., & McComb, C. (2022) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.891529 · Cited by 34
Lindvall, M., Lundström, C. F., & Löwgren, J. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3397481.3450681 · Cited by 33
Appelganc, K., Rieger, T., Roesler, E., & Manzey, D. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434221104615 · Cited by 33
The concept of “interaction” in debates on human-machine interaction
Schleidgen, S., Friedrich, O., Gerlek, S., Assadi, G., & Seifert, J. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02060-8 · Cited by 31
“Role of Human-AI interaction in selective prediction,”
Bondi, E., Koster, R., Sheahan, H., Chadwick, M., Bachrach, Y., Cemgil, T., Paquet, U., & Dvijotham, K. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20465 · Cited by 30
Porat, T., Marshall, I. J., Sadler, E., Vadillo, M. A., McKevitt, C., Wolfe, C. D. A., & Curcin, V. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030385 · Cited by 27
Suresh, H., Lewis, K. M., Guttag, J. V., & Satyanarayan, A. (2022) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3490099.3511160 · Cited by 26
Liehner, G. L., Brauner, P., Schaar, A. K., & Ziefle, M. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society · doi:10.1109/tts.2021.3118355 · Cited by 24
The challenges of providing explanations of AI systems when they do not behave like users expect
Riveiro, M., & Thill, S. (2022) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3503252.3531306 · Cited by 22
Wu, Y., Kim, K. J., & Mou, Y. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221138072 · Cited by 22
Revisions and regret: the cost of changing your mind
Kirkebøen, G., Vasaasen, E., & Halvor Teigen, K. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.756 · Cited by 21
van Berkel, N., Opie, J., Ahmad, O. F., Lovat, L., Stoyanov, D., & Blandford, A. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3480247 · Cited by 20
Mapping the Design Space of Human-AI Interaction in Text Summarization
Cheng, R., Smith-Renner, A., Zhang, K., Tetreault, J., & Jaimes-Larrarte, A. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.33 · Cited by 20
Cheung, J. L. S., Ali, A. A. A., Abdalla, M., & Fine, B. (2022) · Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal · doi:10.1177/08465371221131200 · Cited by 19
Modeling Role-based Interactions for Agents
Cabri, G., Leonardi, L., & Zambonelli, F. (2002) · Cited by 18
Color for Characters - Effects of Visual Explanations of AI on Trust and Observability
Schrills, T., & Franke, T. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50334-5_8 · Cited by 17 · cited 1×
“…et al., 2023; Bansal et al., 2021); speech classification (Tutul et al., 2021; Zhang and Lim, 2022) 20 Labeling Text labeling (Bernard et al., 2018; Schrills and Franke, 2020; Ashktorab et al., 2021; Desmond et al., 2021; Brachman et al., 2022; Schemmer et al., 2023; Mackeprang et al., 2019);…”
Stites, M. C., Nyre-Yu, M., Moss, B., Smutz, C., & Smith, M. R. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77772-2_18 · Cited by 17
Tutul, A. A., Nirjhar, E. H., & Chaspari, T. (2021) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/3462244.3479926 · Cited by 15
Temporal Patterns in Interactions: T-Patterns and Their Detection with THEMETM
Magnusson, M. S. (2018) · The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis · doi:10.1017/9781316286302.017 · Cited by 15
An Empirical Evaluation of Predicted Outcomes as Explanations in Human-AI Decision-Making
Jakubik, J., Schoeffer, J., Hoge, V., Vössing, M., & Kühl, N. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-23618-1_24 · Cited by 15
“Reliance and automation for Human-AI collaborative data labeling conflict resolution,”
Brachman, M., Ashktorab, Z., Desmond, M., Duesterwald, E., Dugan, C., Joshi, N. N., Pan, Q., & Sharma, A. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555212 · Cited by 14
Silva‐Rodríguez, V., Nava‐Muñoz, S. E., Castro, L. A., Martínez‐Pérez, F. E., Pérez‐González, H. G., & Torres‐Reyes, F. (2020) · IET Software · doi:10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0291 · Cited by 12
“ObjectivAIze: Measuring performance and biases in augmented business decision systems,”
Baudel, T., Verbockhaven, M., Cousergue, V., Roy, G., & Laarach, R. (2021) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85613-7_22 · Cited by 10
Wang, R., Fu, G., Li, J., & Pei, Y. (2022) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.15871 · Cited by 10
A secure and sustainable framework to mitigate hazardous activities in online social networks
Rahman, M. A., Sadat, S. M. N., Asyhari, A. T., Refat, N., Kabir, M. N., & Arshah, R. A. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing · doi:10.1109/tsusc.2019.2911188 · Cited by 7
Ma, K., & Cao, J. (2019) · Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11051-2_93 · Cited by 6
In search of a Goldilocks zone for credible AI
Allan, K., Oren, N., Hutchison, J., & Martin, D. S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-93109-8 · Cited by 5
Explaining Algorithm Aversion with Metacognitive Bandits
Cognitive Science Society 2021, Benjamin, A. S., Kumar, A., Patel, T. N., & Mark Steyvers, B. (2021) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · doi:10.48448/2hr5-9008 · Cited by 5
GLANCE: Visual Analytics for Monitoring Glaucoma Progression
van den Brandt, A., Christopher, M. A., Zangwill, L. M., Rezapour, J., Bowd, C., Baxter, S. L., Welsbie, D. S., Camp, A. S., Moghimi, S., Jiun, L., et al. (2020) · TU/e Research Portal · doi:10.2312/vcbm.20201175 · Cited by 4
Mapping the Design Space of Human-AI Interaction in Text Summarization
Cheng, R., Smith-Renner, A., Zhang, K., Tetreault, J. R., & Jaimes, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.14863 · Cited by 4
Learning to Explain Selectively: A Case Study on Question Answering
Feng, S., & Boyd-Graber, J. L. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.573 · Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- David, 2022, “Interaction templates: a data-driven approach for authoring robot programs,”, PLATEAU: 12th Annual Workshop at the Intersection of PL and HCI
Cited by
Göndöcs, D., Horváth, S., & Dörfler, V. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103622 · Cited by 42
Enhancing Intuitive Decision-Making and Reliance Through Human–AI Collaboration: A Review
Xu, G., Murthy, S. V., & Jia, B. (2025) · Informatics · doi:10.3390/informatics12040135 · Cited by 30
Human-Centered Human-AI Collaboration (HC-HAC)
Gao, Q., Xu, W., Pan, H., Shen, M., & Gao, Z. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-5585-7_7 · Cited by 26
Faas, C., Uth, R., Sterz, S., Langer, M., & Feit, A. M. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812265 · Cited by 25
Engaging with AI: How Interface Design Shapes Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-MakingPreprint
Chen, Z., Luo, Y., & Sra, M. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.16627 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Gomez, C., Cho, S. M., Ke, S., Huang, C.-M., & Unberath, M.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Unberath, Mathias
- Venue
- Frontiers in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2025-01-06
- Volume
- 6
- ISSN
- 2624-9898 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4406083100
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 129
- Citations by year
- 2026: 160 · 2025: 46
- FWCI
- 20.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Computer Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Johns Hopkins University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- human-AI collaboration, AI-assisted decision-making, interaction design, decision support system, explainable AI, trust in AI, human-centered AI, interaction protocols
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
