The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) across a wide range of domains comes with both high expectations of its benefits and dire predictions of misuse. While AI systems have largely been driven by a technology-centered design approach, the potential societal consequences of AI have mobilized both HCI and AI researchers towards researching human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI). However, there remains considerable ambiguity about what it means to frame, design and evaluate HCAI. This paper presents a critical review of the large corpus of peer-reviewed literature emerging on HCAI in order to characterize what the community is defining as HCAI. Our review contributes an overview and map of HCAI research based on work that explicitly mentions the terms ‘human-centered artificial intelligence’ or ‘human-centered machine learning’ or their variations, and suggests future challenges and research directions. The map reveals the breadth of research happening in HCAI, established clusters and the emerging areas of Interaction with AI and Ethical AI. The paper contributes a new definition of HCAI, and calls for greater collaboration between AI and HCI research, and new HCAI constructs.

What is Human-Centered about Human-Centered AI? A Map of the Research Landscape

The proposed EU regulation for Artificial Intelligence (AI), the AI Act, has sparked some debate about the role of explainable AI (XAI) in high-risk AI systems. Some argue that black-box AI models will have to be replaced with transparent ones, others argue that using XAI techniques might help in achieving compliance. This work aims to bring some clarity as regards XAI in the context of the AI Act and focuses in particular on the AI Act requirements for transparency and human oversight. After outlining key points of the debate and describing the current limitations of XAI techniques, this paper carries out an interdisciplinary analysis of how the AI Act addresses the issue of opaque AI systems. In particular, we argue that neither does the AI Act mandate a requirement for XAI, which is the subject of intense scientific research and is not without technical limitations, nor does it ban the use of black-box AI systems. Instead, the AI Act aims to achieve its stated policy objectives with the focus on transparency (including documentation) and human oversight. Finally, in order to concretely illustrate our findings and conclusions, a use case on AI-based proctoring is presented.

/pdf/the-role-of-explainable-ai-in-the-context-of-the-ai-act-2c5514tq.pdf

The role of explainable AI in the context of the AI Act

Proponents of explainable AI have often argued that it constitutes an essential path towards algorithmic fairness. Prior works examining these claims have primarily evaluated explanations based on their effects on humans' perceptions, but there is scant research on the relationship between explanations and distributive fairness of AI-assisted decisions. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to examine the relationship between feature-based explanations and distributive fairness, mediated by human perceptions and reliance on AI recommendations. Our findings show that explanations influence fairness perceptions, which, in turn, relate to humans' tendency to adhere to AI recommendations. However, our findings suggest that such explanations do not enable humans to discern correct and wrong AI recommendations. Instead, we show that they may affect reliance irrespective of the correctness of AI recommendations. Depending on which features an explanation highlights, this can foster or hinder distributive fairness: when explanations highlight features that are task-irrelevant and evidently associated with the sensitive attribute, this prompts overrides that counter stereotype-aligned AI recommendations. Meanwhile, if explanations appear task-relevant, this induces reliance behavior that reinforces stereotype-aligned errors. These results show that feature-based explanations are not a reliable mechanism to improve distributive fairness, as their ability to do so relies on a human-in-the-loop operationalization of the flawed notion of"fairness through unawareness". Finally, our study design provides a blueprint to evaluate the suitability of other explanations as pathways towards improved distributive fairness of AI-assisted decisions.

pdf/on-explanations-fairness-and-appropriate-reliance-in-human-23ud8wih.pdf

On Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making

Abstract Inspired by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment humans, researchers have studied human–AI systems involving different tasks, systems and populations. Despite such a large body of work, we lack a broad conceptual understanding of when combinations of humans and AI are better than either alone. Here we addressed this question by conducting a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of 106 experimental studies reporting 370 effect sizes. We searched an interdisciplinary set of databases (the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, the Web of Science and the Association for Information Systems eLibrary) for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2023. Each study was required to include an original human-participants experiment that evaluated the performance of humans alone, AI alone and human–AI combinations. First, we found that, on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone (Hedges’ g = −0.23; 95% confidence interval, −0.39 to −0.07). Second, we found performance losses in tasks that involved making decisions and significantly greater gains in tasks that involved creating content. Finally, when humans outperformed AI alone, we found performance gains in the combination, but when AI outperformed humans alone, we found losses. Limitations of the evidence assessed here include possible publication bias and variations in the study designs analysed. Overall, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of the effects of human–AI collaboration and point to promising avenues for improving human–AI systems. 

When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Among the primary aims of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the enhancement of User Experience (UX) by providing deep understanding, profound empathy, tailored assistance, useful recommendations, and natural communication with human interactants while they are achieving their goals through computer use. To this end, AI is used in varying techniques to automate sophisticated functions in UX and thereby changing what UX is apprehended by the users. This is achieved through the development of intelligent interactive systems such as virtual assistants, recommender systems, and intelligent tutoring systems. The changes are well received, as technological achievements but create new challenges of trust, explainability and usability to humans, which in turn need to be amended by further advancements of AI in reciprocity. AI can be utilised to enhance the UX of a system while the quality of the UX can influence the effectiveness of AI. The state of the art in AI for UX is constantly evolving, with a growing focus on designing transparent, explainable, and fair AI systems that prioritise user control and autonomy, protect user data privacy and security, and promote diversity and inclusivity in the design process. Staying up to date with the latest advancements and best practices in this field is crucial. This paper conducts a critical analysis of published academic works and research studies related to AI and UX, exploring their interrelationship and the cause-effect cycle between the two. Ultimately, best practices for achieving a successful interrelationship of AI in UX are identified and listed based on established methods or techniques that have been proven to be effective in previous research reviewed.

Artificial Intelligence and User Experience in reciprocity: Contributions and state of the art

Automated decision-making systems become increasingly powerful due to higher model complexity. While powerful in prediction accuracy, Deep Learning models are black boxes by nature, preventing users from making informed judgments about the correctness and fairness of such an automated system. Explanations have been proposed as a general remedy to the black box problem. However, it remains unclear if effects of explanations on user trust generalise over varying accuracy levels. In an online user study with 959 participants, we examined the practical consequences of adding explanations for user trust: We evaluated trust for three explanation types on three classifiers of varying accuracy. We find that the influence of our explanations on trust differs depending on the classifier’s accuracy. Thus, the interplay between trust and explanations is more complex than previously reported. Our findings also reveal discrepancies between self-reported and behavioural trust, showing that the choice of trust measure impacts the results.

It’s Complicated: The Relationship between User Trust, Model Accuracy and Explanations in AI

Supervised machine learning utilizes large datasets, often with ground truth labels annotated by humans. While some data points are easy to classify, others are hard to classify, which reduces the inter-annotator agreement. This causes noise for the classifier and might affect the user’s perception of the classifier’s performance. In our research, we investigated whether the classification difficulty of a data point influences how strongly a prediction mistake reduces the “perceived accuracy”. In an experimental online study, 225 participants interacted with three fictive classifiers with equal accuracy (73%). The classifiers made prediction mistakes on three different types of data points (easy, difficult, impossible). After the interaction, participants judged the classifier’s accuracy. We found that not all prediction mistakes reduced the perceived accuracy equally. Furthermore, the perceived accuracy differed significantly from the calculated accuracy. To conclude, accuracy and related measures seem unsuitable to represent how users perceive the performance of classifiers.

/pdf/how-accurate-does-it-feel-human-perception-of-different-1yy543xi.pdf

How Accurate Does It Feel? – Human Perception of Different Types of Classification Mistakes

Online retailers often offer a vast choice of products to their customers to filter and browse through. The order in which the products are listed depends on the ranking algorithm employed in the online shop. State-of-the-art ranking methods are complex and draw on many different information, e.g., user query and intent, product attributes, popularity, recency, reviews, or purchases. However, approaches that incorporate user-generated data such as click-through data, user ratings, or reviews disadvantage new products that have not yet been rated by customers. We therefore propose the User-Needs-Driven Ranking (UNDR) method that accounts for explicit customer needs by using facet popularity and facet value popularity. As a user-centered approach that does not rely on post-purchase ratings or reviews, our method bypasses the cold-start problem while still reflecting the needs of an average customer. In two preliminary user studies, we compare our ranking method with a rating-based ranking baseline. Our findings show that our proposed approach generates a ranking that fits current customer needs significantly better than the baseline. However, a more fine-grained usage-specific ranking did not further improve the ranking.

UNDR: User-Needs-Driven Ranking of Products in E-Commerce

Machine learning systems can help humans to make decisions by providing decision suggestions (i.e., a label for a datapoint). However, individual datapoints do not always provide enough clear evidence to make confident suggestions. Although methods exist that enable systems to identify those datapoints and subsequently abstain from suggesting a label, it remains unclear how users would react to such system behavior. This paper presents first findings from a user study on systems that do or do not abstain from labeling ambiguous datapoints. Our results show that label suggestions on ambiguous datapoints bear a high risk of unconsciously influencing the users’ decisions, even toward incorrect ones. Furthermore, participants perceived a system that abstains from labeling uncertain datapoints as equally competent and trustworthy as a system that delivers label suggestions for all datapoints. Consequently, if abstaining does not impair a system’s credibility, it can be a useful mechanism to increase decision quality.

pdf/know-what-not-to-know-users-perception-of-abstaining-2lhpf6ho.pdf

Know What Not To Know: Users’ Perception of Abstaining Classifiers

Word embeddings are an essential instrument in many NLP tasks. Most available resources are trained on general language from Web corpora or Wikipedia dumps. However, word embeddings for domain-specific language are rare, in particular for the social science domain. Therefore, in this work, we describe the creation and evaluation of word embedding models based on 37,604 open-access social science research papers. In the evaluation, we compare domain-specific and general language models for (i) language coverage, (ii) diversity, and (iii) semantic relationships. We found that the created domain-specific model, even with a relatively small vocabulary size, covers a large part of social science concepts, their neighborhoods are diverse in comparison to more general models Across all relation types, we found a more extensive coverage of semantic relationships.

Evaluation of Word Embeddings for the Social Sciences

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Dagmar Kern

Author Tools

Chat about Author