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

Michael Vössing

Michael Vössing contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Human-Computer InteractionArtificial IntelligenceMachine LearningSocial and Information Networks

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

An Empirical Evaluation of Predicted Outcomes as Explanations in Human-AI Decision-Making

In this work, we empirically examine human-AI decision-making in the presence of explanations based on predicted outcomes. This type of explanation provides a human decision-maker with expected consequences for each decision alternative at inference time - where the predicted outcomes are typically measured in a problem-specific unit (e.g., profit in U.S. dollars). We conducted a pilot study in the context of peer-to-peer lending to assess the effects of providing predicted outcomes as explanations to lay study participants. Our preliminary findings suggest that people's reliance on AI recommendations increases compared to cases where no explanation or feature-based explanations are provided, especially when the AI recommendations are incorrect. This results in a hampered ability to distinguish correct from incorrect AI recommendations, which can ultimately affect decision quality in a negative way.

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

Forming Effective Human-AI Teams: Building Machine Learning Models that Complement the Capabilities of Multiple Experts

Machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being used in application domains that often involve working together with human experts. In this context, it can be advantageous to defer certain instances to a single human expert when they are difficult to predict for the ML model. While previous work has focused on scenarios with one distinct human expert, in many real-world situations several human experts with varying capabilities may be available. In this work, we propose an approach that trains a classification model to complement the capabilities of multiple human experts. By jointly training the classifier together with an allocation system, the classifier learns to accurately predict those instances that are difficult for the human experts, while the allocation system learns to pass each instance to the most suitable team member -- either the classifier or one of the human experts. We evaluate our proposed approach in multiple experiments on public datasets with "synthetic" experts and a real-world medical dataset annotated by multiple radiologists. Our approach outperforms prior work and is more accurate than the best human expert or a classifier. Furthermore, it is flexibly adaptable to teams of varying sizes and different levels of expert diversity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Instance Selection Mechanisms for Human-in-the-Loop Systems in Few-Shot Learning

Business analytics and machine learning have become essential success factors for various industries - with the downside of cost-intensive gathering and labeling of data. Few-shot learning addresses this challenge and reduces data gathering and labeling costs by learning novel classes with very few labeled data. In this paper, we design a human-in-the-loop (HITL) system for few-shot learning and analyze an extensive range of mechanisms that can be used to acquire human expert knowledge for instances that have an uncertain prediction outcome. We show that the acquisition of human expert knowledge significantly accelerates the few-shot model performance given a negligible labeling effort. We validate our findings in various experiments on a benchmark dataset in computer vision and real-world datasets. We further demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of HITL systems for few-shot learning. Overall, our work aims at supporting researchers and practitioners in effectively adapting machine learning models to novel classes at reduced costs.

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

Online Emotions During the Storming of the U.S. Capitol: Evidence from the Social Media Network Parler

The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 has led to the killing of 5 people and is widely regarded as an attack on democracy. The storming was largely coordinated through social media networks such as Parler. Yet little is known regarding how users interacted on Parler during the storming of the Capitol. In this work, we examine the emotion dynamics on Parler during the storming with regard to heterogeneity across time and users. For this, we segment the user base into different groups (e.g., Trump supporters and QAnon supporters). We use affective computing (Kratzwald et al. 2018) to infer the emotions in the contents, thereby allowing us to provide a comprehensive assessment of online emotions. Our evaluation is based on a large-scale dataset from Parler, comprising of 717,300 posts from 144,003 users. We find that the user base responded to the storming of the Capitol with an overall negative sentiment. Akin to this, Trump supporters also expressed a negative sentiment and high levels of unbelief. In contrast to that, QAnon supporters did not express a more negative sentiment during the storming. We further provide a cross-platform analysis and compare the emotion dynamics on Parler and Twitter. Our findings point at a comparatively less negative response to the incidents on Parler compared to Twitter accompanied by higher levels of disapproval and outrage. Our contribution to research is three-fold: (1) We identify online emotions that were characteristic of the storming; (2) we assess emotion dynamics across different user groups on Parler; (3) we compare the emotion dynamics on Parler and Twitter. Thereby, our work offers important implications for actively managing online emotions to prevent similar incidents in the future.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access