mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Incentive-Tuning: Understanding and Designing Incentives for Empirical Human-AI Decision-Making Studies

arXiv 2601.15064 ↗First posted 21 Jan 2026cs.HC cs.AI cs.GTcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI has revolutionised decision-making across various fields. Yet human judgement remains paramount for high-stakes decision-making. This has fueled explorations of collaborative decision-making between humans and AI systems, aiming to leverage the strengths of both. To explore this dynamic, researchers conduct empirical studies, investigating how humans use AI assistance for decision-making and how this collaboration impacts results. A critical aspect of conducting these studies is the role of participants, often recruited through crowdsourcing platforms. The validity of these studies hinges on the behaviours of the participants, hence effective incentives that can potentially affect these behaviours are a key part of designing and executing these studies. In this work, we aim to address the critical role of incentive design for conducting empirical human-AI decision-making studies, focusing on understanding, designing, and documenting incentive schemes. Through a thematic review of existing research, we explored the current practices, challenges, and opportunities associated with incentive design for human-AI decision-making empirical studies. We identified recurring patterns, or themes, such as what comprises the components of an incentive scheme, how incentive schemes are manipulated by researchers, and the impact they can have on research outcomes. Leveraging the acquired understanding, we curated a set of guidelines to aid researchers in designing effective incentive schemes for their studies, called the Incentive-Tuning Framework, outlining how researchers can undertake, reflect on, and document the incentive design process. By advocating for a standardised yet flexible approach to incentive design and contributing valuable insights along with practical tools, we hope to pave the way for more reliable and generalizable knowledge in the field of human-AI decision-making.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 111 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jan 2026.

Builds on

20 of 111 references.

References · 20

  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. 2020Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systemscited by 139
  5. 2018'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage'; Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisionscited by 91
  6. 2020"Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humanscited by 86
  7. 2020Evaluating Saliency Map Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks: A User Studycited by 86
  8. 2022Human-AI Collaboration via Conditional Delegation: A Case Study of Content Moderationcited by 67
  9. 2023Who Should I Trust: AI or Myself? Leveraging Human and AI Correctness Likelihood to Promote Appropriate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Makingcited by 67
  10. 2020Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-makingcited by 59
  11. 2018What can AI do for me: Evaluating Machine Learning Interpretations in Cooperative Playcited by 53
  12. 2014Adaptive Contract Design for Crowdsourcing Markets: Bandit Algorithms for Repeated Principal-Agent Problemscited by 46
8 more
  1. 2023Knowing About Knowing: An Illusion of Human Competence Can Hinder Appropriate Reliance on AI Systemscited by 41
  2. 2021Do Humans Trust Advice More if it Comes from AI? An Analysis of Human-AI Interactionscited by 35
  3. 2016Crowdsourcing in Computer Visioncited by 31
  4. 2020Leveraging Rationales to Improve Human Task Performancecited by 20
  5. 2021On the state of reporting in crowdsourcing experiments and a checklist to aid current practicescited by 6
  6. 2022Taking Advice from (Dis)Similar Machines: The Impact of Human-Machine Similarity on Machine-Assisted Decision-Makingcited by 6
  7. 2023The State of Pilot Study Reporting in Crowdsourcing: A Reflection on Best Practices and Guidelinescited by 5
  8. 2016Crowd Guilds: Worker-led Reputation and Feedback on Crowdsourcing Platformscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.