Underspecified Human Decision Experiments Considered Harmful
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Decision-making with information displays is a key focus of research in areas like human-AI collaboration and data visualization. However, what constitutes a decision problem, and what is required for an experiment to conclude that decisions are flawed, remain imprecise. We present a widely applicable definition of a decision problem synthesized from statistical decision theory and information economics. We claim that to attribute loss in human performance to bias, an experiment must provide the information that a rational agent would need to identify the normative decision. We evaluate whether recent empirical research on AI-assisted decisions achieves this standard. We find that only 10 (26%) of 39 studies that claim to identify biased behavior presented participants with sufficient information to make this claim in at least one treatment condition. We motivate the value of studying well-defined decision problems by describing a characterization of performance losses they allow to be conceived.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jan 2024.
Builds on
21 of 71 references.
References · 21
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
- 2020Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?cited by 190
- 2021To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-makingcited by 118
- 2019Human-Centered Tools for Coping with Imperfect Algorithms during Medical Decision-Makingcited by 109
- 2021Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: A Survey of Empirical Studiescited by 86
- 2021Understanding the Effect of Out-of-distribution Examples and Interactive Explanations on Human-AI Decision Makingcited by 58
- 2018Do Explanations make VQA Models more Predictable to a Human?cited by 52
- 2021Teaching Humans When To Defer to a Classifier via Exemplarscited by 29
- 2020Optimization of Scoring Rulescited by 28
- 2023Human-Aligned Calibration for AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 28
- 2020Leveraging Rationales to Improve Human Task Performancecited by 20
9 more
- 2021Sibyl: Understanding and Addressing the Usability Challenges of Machine Learning In High-Stakes Decision Makingcited by 19
- 2020Human Evaluation of Spoken vs. Visual Explanations for Open-Domain QAcited by 17
- 2021The Impact of Algorithmic Risk Assessments on Human Predictions and its Analysis via Crowdsourcing Studiescited by 13
- 2020When Does Uncertainty Matter?: Understanding the Impact of Predictive Uncertainty in ML Assisted Decision Makingcited by 12
- 2020Do I Look Like a Criminal? Examining how Race Presentation Impacts Human Judgement of Recidivismcited by 11
- 2023The Rational Agent Benchmark for Data Visualizationcited by 10
- 2019A Bayesian Cognition Approach to Improve Data Visualizationcited by 5
- 2020Bayesian-Assisted Inference from Visualized Datacited by 3
- 2023Designing Shared Information Displays for Agents of Varying Strategic Sophisticationcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Trust Hinders Bidirectional Human-AI Alignmentcited by 0
- 2026Trust Hinders Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment10 Oct 2026