mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What Else Do I Need to Know? The Effect of Background Information on Users' Reliance on QA Systems

arXiv 2305.14331 ↗First posted 23 May 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

NLP systems have shown impressive performance at answering questions by retrieving relevant context. However, with the increasingly large models, it is impossible and often undesirable to constrain models' knowledge or reasoning to only the retrieved context. This leads to a mismatch between the information that the models access to derive the answer and the information that is available to the user to assess the model predicted answer. In this work, we study how users interact with QA systems in the absence of sufficient information to assess their predictions. Further, we ask whether adding the requisite background helps mitigate users' over-reliance on predictions. Our study reveals that users rely on model predictions even in the absence of sufficient information needed to assess the model's correctness. Providing the relevant background, however, helps users better catch model errors, reducing over-reliance on incorrect predictions. On the flip side, background information also increases users' confidence in their accurate as well as inaccurate judgments. Our work highlights that supporting users' verification of QA predictions is an important, yet challenging, problem.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 May 2023.

Builds on

23 of 46 references.

References · 23

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
  4. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  5. 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
  6. 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,922
  7. 2022LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applicationscited by 1,218
  8. 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,054
  9. 2019How Can We Know What Language Models Know?cited by 953
  10. 2023A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivitycited by 888
  11. 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 396
  12. 2020Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 281
11 more
  1. 2020Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AIcited by 166
  2. 2018On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detectioncited by 159
  3. 2020Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systemscited by 138
  4. 2019Compositional Questions Do Not Necessitate Multi-hop Reasoningcited by 87
  5. 2023Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanationscited by 73
  6. 2018What can AI do for me: Evaluating Machine Learning Interpretations in Cooperative Playcited by 52
  7. 2019Understanding Dataset Design Choices for Multi-hop Reasoningcited by 50
  8. 2023In Search of Verifiability: Explanations Rarely Enable Complementary Performance in AI-Advised Decision Makingcited by 50
  9. 2018The Challenge of Crafting Intelligible Intelligencecited by 46
  10. 2019How model accuracy and explanation fidelity influence user trustcited by 44
  11. 2022Calibrating Trust of Multi-Hop Question Answering Systems with Decompositional Probescited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

9 papers.