Retrospective End-User Walkthrough: A Method for Assessing How People Combine Multiple AI Models in Decision-Making Systems

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 exp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:arXiv.org 2023-05
Main Authors: Vagner Figueredo de Santana, Larissa Monteiro Da Fonseca Galeno, Emilio Vital Brazil, Heching, Aliza, Cerqueira, Renato
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Context
Decision analysis
Decision making
Hypothesis testing
Natural language processing
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:2331-8422