As AI systems are increasingly adopted in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, and criminal justice, their failures may threaten human safety and rights. Human oversight of AI systems is therefore critically important, as a potential safeguard to prevent harmful consequences in high-risk AI applications. Although regulations like the European AI Act mandate human oversight for high-risk AI, we lack methodologies and conceptual clarity to implement it effectively. Independent of policy and regulation, poorly designed oversight can create dangerous illusions of safety while obscuring accountability. This interdisciplinary workshop aims to bring together researchers from various disciplines, including AI, HCI, psychology, law, and policy, to address this critical gap. We will explore the following questions — How can we design AI systems that enable meaningful human oversight? What methods effectively communicate system states and risks to human overseers? How do we ensure scalable and effective interventions? Through papers, talks, and interactive group discussions, participants will identify oversight challenges, examine stakeholder roles, discuss supporting tools, methods, regulatory frameworks, and establish a collaborative research agenda. Our central goal is to further a roadmap that enables effective human oversight for the responsible deployment of AI in society.

Despite decades of advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), fostering appropriate trust in AI systems remains a challenge. Cognitive biases - systematic deviations from rational judgement - profoundly influence human decision-making, and reliance on such “mental shortcuts” can make AI systems appear more or less trustworthy than they really are, often undermining collaboration outcomes. As AI evolves with more sophisticated and persuasive natural language outputs, particularly through Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs), these biases may manifest in new and unpredictable ways, calling for their comprehensive examination. This workshop brings together diverse researchers from HCI, human-centred AI, cognitive psychology, interaction design, and related fields to collaboratively explore how cognitive biases influence trust calibration in human-AI interaction and establish a research agenda. We will explore how biases emerge across the human-AI interaction pipeline, what design strategies can mitigate or even harness these heuristics, and what methods are needed to study these dynamics effectively. Through a highly interactive 90-minute session, participants will map out open challenges, brainstorm tensions and solutions, chart future research directions, and share perspectives from their own diverse disciplinary lenses. Through this workshop, we aim to build a shared understanding of how cognitive biases influence trust in evolving AI systems, and derive a forward-looking, bias-aware research agenda that promotes appropriate trust in human-AI interaction.

Compared to search engine result pages (SERPs), AI-generated podcasts represent a relatively new and relatively more passive modality of information consumption, delivering narratives in a naturally engaging format. As these two media increasingly converge in everyday information-seeking behavior, it is essential to explore how their interaction influences user attitudes, particularly in contexts involving controversial, value-laden, and often debated topics. Addressing this need, we aim to understand how information mediums of present-day SERPs and AI-generated podcasts interact to shape the opinions of users. To this end, through a controlled user study (N = 483), we investigated user attitudinal effects of consuming information via SERPs and AI-generated podcasts, focusing on how the sequence and modality of exposure shape user opinions. A majority of users in our study corresponded to attitude change outcomes, and we found an effect of sequence on attitude change. Our results further revealed a role of viewpoint bias and the degree of topic controversiality in shaping attitude change, although we found no effect of individual moderators.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods are being proposed to help interpret and understand how AI systems reach specific predictions. Inspired by prior work on conversational user interfaces, we argue that augmenting existing XAI methods with conversational user interfaces can increase user engagement and boost user understanding of the AI system. In this paper, we explored the impact of a conversational XAI interface on users’ understanding of the AI system, their trust, and reliance on the AI system. In comparison to an XAI dashboard, we found that the conversational XAI interface can bring about a better understanding of the AI system among users and higher user trust. However, users of both the XAI dashboard and conversational XAI interfaces showed clear over-reliance on the AI system. Enhanced conversations powered by large language model (LLM) agents amplified over-reliance. Based on our findings, we reason that the potential cause of such over-reliance is the illusion of explanatory depth that is concomitant with both XAI interfaces. Our findings have important implications for designing effective conversational XAI interfaces to facilitate appropriate reliance and improve human-AI collaboration.

Research on trust in AI is limited to several trustors (e.g., end-users) and trustees (especially AI systems), and empirical explorations remain in laboratory settings, overlooking factors that impact trust relations in the real world. Here, we broaden the scope of research by accounting for the supply chains that AI systems are part of. To this end, we present insights from an in-situ, empirical, study of LLM supply chains. We conducted interviews with 71 practitioners, and analyzed their (collaborative) practices using the lens of trust drawing from literature in organizational psychology. Our work reveals complex trust dynamics at the junctions of the chains, with interactions between diverse technical artifacts, individuals, or organizations. These junctions might constitute terrain for uncalibrated reliance when trustors lack supply chain knowledge or power dynamics are at play. Our findings bear implications for AI researchers and policymakers to promote AI governance that fosters calibrated trust.

Since the explosion in popularity of ChatGPT, large language models (LLMs) have continued to impact our everyday lives. Equipped with external tools that are designed for a specific purpose (e.g., for flight booking or an alarm clock), LLM agents exercise an increasing capability to assist humans in their daily work. Although LLM agents have shown a promising blueprint as daily assistants, there is a limited understanding of how they can provide daily assistance based on planning and sequential decision making capabilities. We draw inspiration from recent work that has highlighted the value of g'LLM-modulo' setups in conjunction with humans-in-the-loop for planning tasks. We conducted an empirical study (N = 248) of LLM agents as daily assistants in six commonly occurring tasks with different levels of risk typically associated with them (e.g., flight ticket booking and credit card payments). To ensure user agency and control over the LLM agent, we adopted LLM agents in a plan-then-execute manner, wherein the agents conducted step-wise planning and step-by-step execution in a simulation environment. We analyzed how user involvement at each stage affects their trust and collaborative team performance. Our findings demonstrate that LLM agents can be a double-edged sword - (1) they can work well when a high-quality plan and necessary user involvement in execution are available, and (2) users can easily mistrust the LLM agents with plans that seem plausible. We synthesized key insights for using LLM agents as daily assistants to calibrate user trust and achieve better overall task outcomes. Our work has important implications for the future design of daily assistants and human-AI collaboration with LLM agents.

Recent advances in generative AI have precipitated a proliferation of novel writing assistants. These systems typically rely on multilingual large language models (LLMs), providing globalized workers the ability to revise or create diverse forms of content in different languages. However, there is substantial evidence indicating that the performance of multilingual LLMs varies between languages. Users who employ writing assistance for multiple languages are therefore susceptible to disparate output quality. Importantly, recent research has shown that people tend to generalize algorithmic errors across independent tasks, violating the behavioral axiom of choice independence. In this paper, we analyze whether user utilization of novel writing assistants in a charity advertisement writing task is affected by the AI's performance in a second language. Furthermore, we quantify the extent to which these patterns translate into the persuasiveness of generated charity advertisements, as well as the role of peoples' beliefs about LLM utilization for their donation choices. Our results provide evidence that writers who engage with an LLM-based writing assistant violate choice independence, as prior exposure to a Spanish LLM reduces subsequent utilization of an English LLM. While these patterns do not affect the aggregate persuasiveness of the generated advertisements, people's beliefs about the source of an advertisement (human versus AI) do. In particular, Spanish-speaking female participants who believed that they read an AI-generated advertisement strongly adjusted their donation behavior downwards. Furthermore, people are generally not able to adequately differentiate between human-generated and LLM-generated ads. Our work has important implications on the design, development, integration, and adoption of multilingual LLMs as assistive agents - particularly in writing tasks.

Contestability has been proposed as a key element in designing algorithmic decision-making processes that safeguard decision subjects' rights to dignity and autonomy. However, little is known about how contestability can be operationalized based on decision subjects' needs and preferences. We address this research gap by identifying decision subjects' information and procedural needs for enacting meaningful contestability. To this end, we chose an illegal holiday rental detection scenario as our case; a high-risk decision-making process in the public sector. We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with citizens with experience renting their homes out and different levels of AI literacy. We found that decision subjects request interventions that facilitate (1) cooperation in sense-making, (2) support in contestation acts, and (3) appropriate responsibility attribution. Our results highlight the cooperative work behind contestability, and motivate future efforts to structure individual and collective action, to personalize explanations for contestability, and to open up sites of contestation in AI pipelines.

Conversational recommender systems (CRSs) provide users with an interactive means to express preferences and receive real-time personalized recommendations. The success of these systems is heavily influenced by the preference elicitation process. While existing research mainly focuses on what questions to ask during preference elicitation, there is a notable gap in understanding what role broader interaction patterns - including tone, pacing, and level of proactiveness - play in supporting users in completing a given task. This study investigates the impact of different conversational styles on preference elicitation, task performance, and user satisfaction with CRSs. We conducted a controlled experiment in the context of scientific literature recommendation, contrasting two distinct conversational styles - high involvement (fast-paced, direct, and proactive with frequent prompts) and high considerateness (polite and accommodating, prioritizing clarity and user comfort) - alongside a flexible experimental condition where users could switch between the two. Our results indicate that adapting conversational strategies based on user expertise and allowing flexibility between styles can enhance both user satisfaction and the effectiveness of recommendations in CRSs. Overall, our findings hold important implications for the design of future CRSs.

Human input is pivotal in building AI systems. Aiding the gathering of high-quality and representative human input on demand, microtask crowdsourcing platforms have thrived. Despite the benefits available, the lack of health provisions, safeguards, and existing practices threaten the sustainability of crowd work. Prior work investigated the usefulness of a dual-purpose input modality of ergonomically-informed gestures across different microtasks, finding that gestures as inputs offer a realistic trade-off between worker accuracy and potential short to long-term health benefits. However, little is understood about the effect of switching input modalities from one task to another on worker experiences and task-related outcomes. Addressing this research and empirical gap, we conducted a between-subjects study (N = 717) with varying sequences of input modalities across 16 experimental conditions to systematically understand the effect of switching input modalities. We found that the order of the input modality can influence the time it takes to complete tasks but does not affect accuracy. Further, the cognitive load perceived by workers was not significantly different between conditions. Our findings hint that ergonomically informed gestures can be effectively intertwined with conventional input modalities without a detrimental impact on worker experiences and quality-related outcomes. Our work has important implications for the design of human-centered crowdsourcing platforms that cater to worker health and wellbeing.

In today's society, where Artificial Intelligence (AI) has gained a vital role, concerns regarding user's trust have garnered significant attention. The use of AI systems in high-risk domains have often led users to either under-trust it, potentially causing inadequate reliance or over-trust it, resulting in over-compliance. Therefore, users must maintain an appropriate level of trust. Past research has indicated that explanations provided by AI systems can enhance user understanding of when to trust or not trust the system. However, the utility of presentation of different explanations forms still remains to be explored especially in high-risk domains. Therefore, this study explores the impact of different explanation types (text, visual, and hybrid) and user expertise (retired police officers and lay users) on establishing appropriate trust in AI-based predictive policing. While we observed that the hybrid form of explanations increased the subjective trust in AI for expert users, it did not led to better decision-making. Furthermore, no form of explanations helped build appropriate trust. The findings of our study emphasize the importance of re-evaluating the use of explanations to build [appropriate] trust in AI based systems especially when the system's use is questionable. Finally, we synthesize potential challenges and policy recommendations based on our results to design for appropriate trust in high-risk based AI-based systems.

Advances in generative AI and the widespread proliferation of LLM-based applications have created a number of opportunities for designing effective and intelligent human-AI interfaces. Conversational User Interfaces (CUIs) have enabled humans to interact with machines more naturally across several domains and applications. People are increasingly familiar with conversational interactions mediated by technology due to the widespread use of mobile technologies, social networks, pervasive computing, and the rapid adoption of large language models that power conversational agents. Based on the recent advances in conversational AI, due to the proliferation of LLMs, there are clear signs that the future of human-computer interaction will have a significant conversational component. In the context of ever-lowering barriers to accessibility to technologies, digital applications, and generative AI, this tutorial will showcase the benefits of employing conversational interfaces for human-AI decision making, health and well-being, and crowd computing. We will discuss the potential of conversational interfaces in facilitating and mediating people’s interactions with AI systems and the opportunities and challenges that lie at this intersection from the broad standpoint of intelligent user interfaces. This third incarnation of this tutorial will include interactive elements and discussions, providing participants with practical insights to inform the design of effective conversational interfaces.

Human intervention is claimed to safeguard decision-subjects’ rights in algorithmic decision-making and contribute to their fairness perceptions. However, how decision-subjects perceive hybrid decision-maker configurations (i.e., combining humans and algorithms) is unclear. We address this gap through a mixed-methods study in an algorithmic policy enforcement context. Through qualitative interviews (Study 1; N1 = 21), we identify three characteristics (i.e., decision-maker’s profile, model type, input data provenance) that affect how decision-subjects perceive decision-makers’ ability, benevolence, and integrity (ABI). Through a quantitative study (Study 2; N2 = 223), we then systematically evaluate the individual and combined effects of these characteristics on decision-subjects’ perceptions towards decision-makers, and fairness perceptions. We found that only decision-maker’s profile contributes to perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity. Interestingly, the effect of decision-maker’s profile on fairness perceptions was mediated by perceived ability and integrity. Our findings have design implications for ensuring effective human intervention as a protection against harmful algorithmic decisions.

Crowdsourcing marketplaces have gradually flourished over the last decade. With the growing landscape of online work in general, and the rise of paid microtask crowdsourcing in particular, the health and wellbeing of crowd workers has become an important concern. In this paper, we present an online conversational survey, named HealthInsights, for understanding the status quo of workers’ health-related background, physical health, mental health, and their needs. We carried out a study on two popular platforms - Mechanical Turk and Prolific. Results show that the survey has acceptable reliability and validity. We found that workers across these platforms reported similar health-related issues, but also exhibited certain differences. Based on our findings, we argue that crowdsourcing platforms, task requesters, and academic researchers need to take the collective responsibility of creating better work environments. Our work has important implications on task and workflow design that are centered around worker health on crowdsourcing platforms.

While existing literature has explored and revealed several insights pertaining to the role of human factors (e.g., prior experience, domain knowledge) and attributes of AI systems (e.g., accuracy, trustworthiness), there is a limited understanding around how the important task characteristics of complexity and uncertainty shape human decision-making and human-AI team performance. In this work, we aim to address this research and empirical gap by systematically exploring how task complexity and uncertainty infuence human-AI decision-making. Task complexity refers to the load of information associated with a task, while task uncertainty refers to the level of unpredictability associated with the outcome of a task. We conducted a between-subjects user study (N = 258) in the context of a trip-planning task to investigate the impact of task complexity and uncertainty on human trust and reliance on AI systems. Our results revealed that task complexity and uncertainty have a signifcant impact on user reliance on AI systems. When presented with complex and uncertain tasks, users tended to rely more on AI systems while demonstrating lower levels of appropriate reliance compared to tasks that were less complex and uncertain. In contrast, we found that user trust in the AI systems was not infuenced by task complexity and uncertainty. Our fndings can help inform the future design of empirical studies exploring human-AI decision-making. Insights from this work can inform the design of AI systems and interventions that are better aligned with the challenges posed by complex and uncertain tasks. Finally, the lens of diagnostic versus prognostic tasks can inspire the operationalization of uncertainty in human-AI decision-making studies.

Pilot studies are an essential cornerstone of the design of crowdsourcing campaigns, yet they are often only mentioned in passing in the scholarly literature. A lack of details surrounding pilot studies in crowdsourcing research hinders the replication of studies and the reproduction of findings, stalling potential scientific advances. We conducted a systematic literature review on the current state of pilot study reporting at the intersection of crowdsourcing and HCI research. Our review of ten years of literature included 171 articles published in the proceedings of the Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (AAAI HCOMP) and the ACM Digital Library. We found that pilot studies in crowdsourcing research (i.e., crowd pilot studies) are often under-reported in the literature. Important details, such as the number of workers and rewards to workers, are often not reported. On the basis of our findings, we reflect on the current state of practice and formulate a set of best practice guidelines for reporting crowd pilot studies in crowdsourcing research. We also provide implications for the design of crowdsourcing platforms and make practical suggestions for supporting crowd pilot study reporting.

Existing research in measuring and mitigating gender bias predominantly centers on English, overlooking the intricate challenges posed by non-English languages and the Global South. This paper presents the first comprehensive study delving into the nuanced landscape of gender bias in Hindi, the third most spoken language globally. Our study employs diverse mining techniques, computational models, field studies and sheds light on the limitations of current methodologies. Given the challenges faced with mining gender biased statements in Hindi using existing methods, we conducted field studies to bootstrap the collection of such sentences. Through field studies involving rural and low-income community women, we uncover diverse perceptions of gender bias, underscoring the necessity for context-specific approaches. This paper advocates for a community-centric research design, amplifying voices often marginalized in previous studies. Our findings not only contribute to the understanding of gender bias in Hindi but also establish a foundation for further exploration of Indic languages. By exploring the intricacies of this understudied context, we call for thoughtful engagement with gender bias, promoting inclusivity and equity in linguistic and cultural contexts beyond the Global North.

The ability to make appropriate delegation decisions is an important prerequisite of effective human-AI collaboration. Recent work, however, has shown that people struggle to evaluate AI systems in the presence of forecasting errors, falling well short of relying on AI systems appropriately. We use a pre-registered crowdsourcing study (N = 611) to extend this literature by two underexplored crucial features of human AI decision-making: choice independence and error type. Subjects in our study repeatedly complete two prediction tasks and choose which predictions they want to delegate to an AI system. For one task, subjects receive a decision heuristic that allows them to make informed and relatively accurate predictions. The second task is substantially harder to solve, and subjects must come up with their own decision rule. We systematically vary the AI system's performance such that it either provides the best possible prediction for both tasks or only for one of the two. Our results demonstrate that people systematically violate choice independence by taking the AI's performance in an unrelated second task into account. Humans who delegate predictions to a superior AI in their own expertise domain significantly reduce appropriate reliance when the model makes systematic errors in a complementary expertise domain. In contrast, humans who delegate predictions to a superior AI in a complementary expertise domain significantly increase appropriate reliance when the model systematically errs in the human expertise domain. Furthermore, we show that humans differentiate between error types and that this effect is conditional on the considered expertise domain. This is the first empirical exploration of choice independence and error types in the context of human-AI collaboration. Our results have broad and important implications for the future design, deployment, and appropriate application of AI systems.

Empirical studies have extensively investigated human decision-making processes in various domains where AI systems are incorporated. However, comparing and replicating these studies can be challenging due to different experimental configurations. Moreover, the existing contexts often have limited scope and may not fully capture the complexity of real-world decision-making scenarios that are riddled with varying levels of uncertainty. Our framework addresses these practical gaps by providing a configurable and reproducible environment for conducting human-AI decision-making studies in the route planning domain that captures many complexities of real-world scenarios. Researchers can customize parameters, conditions, and factors involved in decision-making tasks to help address research and empirical gaps through rigorous experiments. With various modules such as map generation, chat components, and different AI systems available within the "DecisionTime"framework, researchers can effortlessly design experiments exploring multiple aspects of human-AI interaction and decision-making.

This workshop will grow and consolidate a community of interdisciplinary CSCW researchers focusing on the topic of contestable AI. As an outcome of the workshop, we will synthesize the most pressing opportunities and challenges for contestability along AI value chains in the form of a research roadmap. This roadmap will help shape and inspire imminent work in this field. Considering the length and depth of AI value chains, it will especially spur discussions around the contestability of AI systems along various sites of such chains. The workshop will serve as a platform for dialogue and demonstrations of concrete, successful, and unsuccessful examples of AI systems that (could or should) have been contested, to identify requirements, obstacles, and opportunities for designing and deploying contestable AI in various contexts. This will be held primarily as an in-person workshop, with some hybrid accommodation. The day will consist of individual presentations and group activities to stimulate ideation and inspire broad reflections on the field of contestable AI. Our aim is to facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue by bringing together researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to foster the design and deployment of contestable AI.