Fine-Grained Appropriate Reliance: Human-AI Collaboration with a Multi-Step Transparent Decision Workflow for Complex Task Decomposition
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In recent years, the rapid development of AI systems has brought about the benefits of intelligent services but also concerns about security and reliability. By fostering appropriate user reliance on an AI system, both complementary team performance and reduced human workload can be achieved. Previous empirical studies have extensively analyzed the impact of factors ranging from task, system, and human behavior on user trust and appropriate reliance in the context of one-step decision making. However, user reliance on AI systems in tasks with complex semantics that require multi-step workflows remains under-explored. Inspired by recent work on task decomposition with large language models, we propose to investigate the impact of a novel Multi-Step Transparent (MST) decision workflow on user reliance behaviors. We conducted an empirical study (N = 233) of AI-assisted decision making in composite fact-checking tasks (i.e., fact-checking tasks that entail multiple sub-fact verification steps). Our findings demonstrate that human-AI collaboration with an MST decision workflow can outperform one-step collaboration in specific contexts (e.g., when advice from an AI system is misleading). Further analysis of the appropriate reliance at fine-grained levels indicates that an MST decision workflow can be effective when users demonstrate a relatively high consideration of the intermediate steps. Our work highlights that there is no one-size-fits-all decision workflow that can help obtain optimal human-AI collaboration. Our insights help deepen the understanding of the role of decision workflows in facilitating appropriate reliance. We synthesize important implications for designing effective means to facilitate appropriate reliance on AI systems in composite tasks, positioning opportunities for the human-centered AI and broader HCI communities.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 43 of its 113 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jan 2025.
Builds on
43 of 113 references.
References · 43
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 396
- 2021A Survey on Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 376
- 2017Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspectivecited by 334
- 2020Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 281
- 2021Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practicescited by 206
- 2021FEVEROUS: Fact Extraction and VERification Over Unstructured and Structured informationcited by 166
- 2023Fact-Checking Complex Claims with Program-Guided Reasoningcited by 146
- 2020Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systemscited by 138
- 2020Towards Accountability for Machine Learning Datasets: Practices from Software Engineering and Infrastructurecited by 138
- 2018Explaining Explanations in AIcited by 136
31 more
- 2022PromptChainer: Chaining Large Language Model Prompts through Visual Programmingcited by 134
- 2023Factuality Challenges in the Era of Large Language Modelscited by 125
- 2021Expanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systemscited by 124
- 2021Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiencescited by 123
- 2023AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmapcited by 119
- 2018Automated Fact Checking: Task formulations, methods and future directionscited by 96
- 2023Revisiting Out-of-distribution Robustness in NLP: Benchmark, Analysis, and LLMs Evaluationscited by 96
- 2020Human-centered Explainable AI: Towards a Reflective Sociotechnical Approachcited by 90
- 2020"Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humanscited by 86
- 2024"I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trustcited by 67
- 2022TalkToModel: Explaining Machine Learning Models with Interactive Natural Language Conversationscited by 65
- 2021Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering: A Surveycited by 52
- 2018Transparency by Design: Closing the Gap Between Performance and Interpretability in Visual Reasoningcited by 51
- 2023In Search of Verifiability: Explanations Rarely Enable Complementary Performance in AI-Advised Decision Makingcited by 50
- 2023Knowing About Knowing: An Illusion of Human Competence Can Hinder Appropriate Reliance on AI Systemscited by 40
- 2019"The Human Body is a Black Box": Supporting Clinical Decision-Making with Deep Learningcited by 39
- 2023ConvXAI: Delivering Heterogeneous AI Explanations via Conversations to Support Human-AI Scientific Writingcited by 31
- 2022A Meta-Analysis of the Utility of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Human-AI Decision-Makingcited by 29
- 2022Should I Follow AI-based Advice? Measuring Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Makingcited by 28
- 2023LLMs as Workers in Human-Computational Algorithms? Replicating Crowdsourcing Pipelines with LLMscited by 27
- 2021Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systemscited by 26
- 2020Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government Contextscited by 22
- 2022REAL ML: Recognizing, Exploring, and Articulating Limitations of Machine Learning Researchcited by 20
- 2022On the Influence of Explainable AI on Automation Biascited by 18
- 2023Designing LLM Chains by Adapting Techniques from Crowdsourcing Workflowscited by 17
- 2022Crowdsourced Fact-Checking at Twitter: How Does the Crowd Compare With Experts?cited by 16
- 2024Does More Advice Help? The Effects of Second Opinions in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 14
- 2017Leveraging the Crowd to Detect and Reduce the Spread of Fake News and Misinformationcited by 12
- 2020Artificial Intelligence Assistance Significantly Improves Gleason Grading of Prostate Biopsies by Pathologistscited by 9
- 2020Can The Crowd Identify Misinformation Objectively? The Effects of Judgment Scale and Assessor's Backgroundcited by 9
- 2020Human Trust-based Feedback Control: Dynamically varying automation transparency to optimize human-machine interactionscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
3 papers.