mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

"It is there, and you need it, so why do you not use it?" Achieving better adoption of AI systems by domain experts, in the case study of natural science research

arXiv 2403.16895 ↗First posted 25 Mar 2024cs.HC cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous in domains such as medicine and natural science research. However, when AI systems are implemented in practice, domain experts often refuse them. Low acceptance hinders effective human-AI collaboration, even when it is essential for progress. In natural science research, scientists' ineffective use of AI-enabled systems can impede them from analysing their data and advancing their research. We conducted an ethnographically informed study of 10 in-depth interviews with AI practitioners and natural scientists at the organisation facing low adoption of algorithmic systems. Results were consolidated into recommendations for better AI adoption: i) actively supporting experts during the initial stages of system use, ii) communicating the capabilities of a system in a user-relevant way, and iii) following predefined collaboration rules. We discuss the broader implications of our findings and expand on how our proposed requirements could support practitioners and experts across domains.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2024.

Builds on

10 of 60 references.

References · 10

  1. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  2. 2020Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 281
  3. 2017What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?cited by 127
  4. 2019Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligencecited by 106
  5. 2019The Algorithmic Automation Problem: Prediction, Triage, and Human Effortcited by 101
  6. 2020A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scorescited by 74
  7. 2017Human-in-the-loop Artificial Intelligencecited by 40
  8. 2023Ignore, Trust, or Negotiate: Understanding Clinician Acceptance of AI-Based Treatment Recommendations in Health Carecited by 37
  9. 2023Charting the Sociotechnical Gap in Explainable AI: A Framework to Address the Gap in XAIcited by 33
  10. 2020A Human-Centered Review of the Algorithms used within the U.S. Child Welfare Systemcited by 23

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.

1 paper.