BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Max Schemmer

Max Schemmer contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer Interactioncond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Meta-Analysis of the Utility of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Human-AI Decision-Making

Research in artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted decision-making is experiencing tremendous growth with a constantly rising number of studies evaluating the effect of AI with and without techniques from the field of explainable AI (XAI) on human decision-making performance. However, as tasks and experimental setups vary due to different objectives, some studies report improved user decision-making performance through XAI, while others report only negligible effects. Therefore, in this article, we present an initial synthesis of existing research on XAI studies using a statistical meta-analysis to derive implications across existing research. We observe a statistically positive impact of XAI on users' performance. Additionally, the first results indicate that human-AI decision-making tends to yield better task performance on text data. However, we find no effect of explanations on users' performance compared to sole AI predictions. Our initial synthesis gives rise to future research investigating the underlying causes and contributes to further developing algorithms that effectively benefit human decision-makers by providing meaningful explanations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Factors that influence the adoption of human-AI collaboration in clinical decision-making

Recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have fueled the emergence of human-AI collaboration, a setting where AI is a coequal partner. Especially in clinical decision-making, it has the potential to improve treatment quality by assisting overworked medical professionals. Even though research has started to investigate the utilization of AI for clinical decision-making, its potential benefits do not imply its adoption by medical professionals. While several studies have started to analyze adoption criteria from a technical perspective, research providing a human-centered perspective with a focus on AI's potential for becoming a coequal team member in the decision-making process remains limited. Therefore, in this work, we identify factors for the adoption of human-AI collaboration by conducting a series of semi-structured interviews with experts in the healthcare domain. We identify six relevant adoption factors and highlight existing tensions between them and effective human-AI collaboration.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the Effect of Information Asymmetry in Human-AI Teams

Over the last years, the rising capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) have improved human decision-making in many application areas. Teaming between AI and humans may even lead to complementary team performance (CTP), i.e., a level of performance beyond the ones that can be reached by AI or humans individually. Many researchers have proposed using explainable AI (XAI) to enable humans to rely on AI advice appropriately and thereby reach CTP. However, CTP is rarely demonstrated in previous work as often the focus is on the design of explainability, while a fundamental prerequisite -- the presence of complementarity potential between humans and AI -- is often neglected. Therefore, we focus on the existence of this potential for effective human-AI decision-making. Specifically, we identify information asymmetry as an essential source of complementarity potential, as in many real-world situations, humans have access to different contextual information. By conducting an online experiment, we demonstrate that humans can use such contextual information to adjust the AI's decision, finally resulting in CTP.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the Influence of Explainable AI on Automation Bias

Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining momentum, and its importance for the future of work in many areas, such as medicine and banking, is continuously rising. However, insights on the effective collaboration of humans and AI are still rare. Typically, AI supports humans in decision-making by addressing human limitations. However, it may also evoke human bias, especially in the form of automation bias as an over-reliance on AI advice. We aim to shed light on the potential to influence automation bias by explainable AI (XAI). In this pre-test, we derive a research model and describe our study design. Subsequentially, we conduct an online experiment with regard to hotel review classifications and discuss first results. We expect our research to contribute to the design and development of safe hybrid intelligence systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Should I Follow AI-based Advice? Measuring Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making

Many important decisions in daily life are made with the help of advisors, e.g., decisions about medical treatments or financial investments. Whereas in the past, advice has often been received from human experts, friends, or family, advisors based on artificial intelligence (AI) have become more and more present nowadays. Typically, the advice generated by AI is judged by a human and either deemed reliable or rejected. However, recent work has shown that AI advice is not always beneficial, as humans have shown to be unable to ignore incorrect AI advice, essentially representing an over-reliance on AI. Therefore, the aspired goal should be to enable humans not to rely on AI advice blindly but rather to distinguish its quality and act upon it to make better decisions. Specifically, that means that humans should rely on the AI in the presence of correct advice and self-rely when confronted with incorrect advice, i.e., establish appropriate reliance (AR) on AI advice on a case-by-case basis. Current research lacks a metric for AR. This prevents a rigorous evaluation of factors impacting AR and hinders further development of human-AI decision-making. Therefore, based on the literature, we derive a measurement concept of AR. We propose to view AR as a two-dimensional construct that measures the ability to discriminate advice quality and behave accordingly. In this article, we derive the measurement concept, illustrate its application and outline potential future research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Will a single two-level atom simultaneously scatter two photons?

The interaction of light with a single two-level emitter is the most fundamental process in quantum optics, and is key to many quantum applications. As a distinctive feature, two photons are never detected simultaneously in the light scattered by the emitter. This is commonly interpreted by saying that a single two-level quantum emitter can only absorb and emit single photons. However, it has been theoretically proposed that the photon anti-correlations can be thought to arise from quantum interference between two possible two-photon scattering amplitudes, which one refers to as coherent and incoherent. This picture is in stark contrast to the aforementioned one, in that it assumes that the atom even has two different mechanisms at its disposal to scatter two photons at the same time. Here, we validate the interference picture by experimentally verifying the 40-year-old conjecture that, by spectrally rejecting only the coherent component of the fluorescence light of a single two-level atom, the remaining light consists of photon pairs that have been simultaneously scattered by the atom. Our results offer fundamental insights into the quantum-mechanical interaction between light and matter and open up novel approaches for the generation of highly non-classical light fields.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Asymptotic temperature of a lossy condensate

We monitor the time evolution of the temperature of phononic collective modes in a one-dimensional quasicondensate submitted to losses. At long times the ratio between the temperature and the energy scale $mc^2$, where $m$ is the atomic mass and $c$ the sound velocity takes, within a precision of 20\%, an asymptotic value. This asymptotic value is observed while $mc^2$ decreases in time by a factor as large as 2.5. Moreover this ratio is shown to be independent on the loss rate and on the strength of interactions. These results confirm theoretical predictions and the measured stationary ratio is in quantitative agreement with the theoretical calculations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access