mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Accuracy-Time Tradeoffs in AI-Assisted Decision Making under Time Pressure

arXiv 2306.07458 ↗First posted 12 Jun 2023cs.HC cs.AIcited by 17

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In settings where users both need high accuracy and are time-pressured, such as doctors working in emergency rooms, we want to provide AI assistance that both increases decision accuracy and reduces decision-making time. Current literature focusses on how users interact with AI assistance when there is no time pressure, finding that different AI assistances have different benefits: some can reduce time taken while increasing overreliance on AI, while others do the opposite. The precise benefit can depend on both the user and task. In time-pressured scenarios, adapting when we show AI assistance is especially important: relying on the AI assistance can save time, and can therefore be beneficial when the AI is likely to be right. We would ideally adapt what AI assistance we show depending on various properties (of the task and of the user) in order to best trade off accuracy and time. We introduce a study where users have to answer a series of logic puzzles. We find that time pressure affects how users use different AI assistances, making some assistances more beneficial than others when compared to no-time-pressure settings. We also find that a user's overreliance rate is a key predictor of their behaviour: overreliers and not-overreliers use different AI assistance types differently. We find marginal correlations between a user's overreliance rate (which is related to the user's trust in AI recommendations) and their personality traits (Big Five Personality traits). Overall, our work suggests that AI assistances have different accuracy-time tradeoffs when people are under time pressure compared to no time pressure, and we explore how we might adapt AI assistances in this setting.

Key facts. Cited by 17 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2023.

Builds on

12 of 68 references.

References · 12

  1. 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
  2. 2020Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 281
  3. 2018Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretabilitycited by 256
  4. 2018On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detectioncited by 159
  5. 2020Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systemscited by 139
  6. 2021To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-makingcited by 118
  7. 2023Who Should I Trust: AI or Myself? Leveraging Human and AI Correctness Likelihood to Promote Appropriate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Makingcited by 67
  8. 2020Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-makingcited by 59
  9. 2023In Search of Verifiability: Explanations Rarely Enable Complementary Performance in AI-Advised Decision Makingcited by 50
  10. 2023Ignore, Trust, or Negotiate: Understanding Clinician Acceptance of AI-Based Treatment Recommendations in Health Carecited by 37
  11. 2021Assessing the Impact of Automated Suggestions on Decision Making: Domain Experts Mediate Model Errors but Take Less Initiativecited by 28
  12. 2022Learning When to Advise Human Decision Makerscited by 18

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 7; 2026: 6.

17 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024Complementarity in Human-AI Collaboration: Concept, Sources, and Evidencecited by 35
  2. 2024Contrastive Explanations That Anticipate Human Misconceptions Can Improve Human Decision-Making Skillscited by 14
  3. 2024Towards Optimizing Human-Centric Objectives in AI-Assisted Decision-Making With Offline Reinforcement Learningcited by 13
  4. 2025From Text to Trust: Empowering AI-assisted Decision Making with Adaptive LLM-powered Analysiscited by 9
  5. 2025When Should We Orchestrate Multiple Agents?cited by 7
  6. 2025Adjust for Trust: Mitigating Trust-Induced Inappropriate Reliance on AI Assistancecited by 6
  7. 2026AI Agents Push Humans Out of the Loopcited by 5
  8. 2025WatchGuardian: Enabling User-Defined Personalized Just-in-Time Intervention on Smartwatchcited by 4
  9. 2024A Sim2Real Approach for Identifying Task-Relevant Properties in Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 2
  10. 2025Revisiting Rogers' Paradox in the Context of Human-AI Interactioncited by 2
  11. 2025Calibrated Trust in Dealing with LLM Hallucinations: A Qualitative Studycited by 2
  12. 2025A Taxonomy for Design and Evaluation of Prompt-Based Natural Language Explanationscited by 1
5 more
  1. 2026The Impact of AI Usage and Informativeness on Skill Development in Logical Reasoningcited by 1
  2. 2026When Life Gives You AI, Will You Turn It Into A Market for Lemons? Understanding How Information Asymmetries About AI System Capabilities Affect Market Outcomes and Adoptioncited by 0
  3. 2026SketchXplain: Intuitive Visual Explanations of Image Classifiers with Sketchescited by 0
  4. 2026How AI Assistance Affects Human Skill Development: A Study of Learning with Logic Puzzlescited by 0
  5. 2026No Pixel Left Behind: Filling Gaps in Anime Colorizationcited by 0