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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When using web search engines to conduct inquiries on debated topics, searchers' interactions with search results are commonly affected by a combination of searcher and system biases. While prior work has mainly investigated these biases in isolation, there is a lack of a comprehensive understanding of web search on debated topics. Addressing this gap, we conducted an exploratory user study (N = 255), aimed at advancing the understanding of the intricate searcher-system interplay. Particularly, we investigated the relations between (i) search system exposure, searchers' attitude strength, prior knowledge, and receptiveness to opposing views, (ii) search interactions, and (iii) post-search epistemic states. We observed that search interaction was shaped by search system exposure, attitude strength, and prior knowledge, and that attitude change was influenced by the level of confirmation bias and initial attitude strength, but not search system exposure. Insights from this work suggest the need to adapt interventions that mitigate the risks of searcher and system bias to searchers' nuanced pre-search epistemic states. They further emphasize the threat of customizing the search ranking to enhance user satisfaction in the context of debated topics to responsible opinion formation.

Web search has evolved into a platform people rely on for opinion formation on debated topics. Yet, pursuing this search intent can carry serious consequences for individuals and society and involves a high risk of biases. We argue that web search can and should empower users to form opinions responsibly and that the information retrieval community is uniquely positioned to lead interdisciplinary efforts to this end. Building on digital humanism---a perspective focused on shaping technology to align with human values and needs---and through an extensive interdisciplinary literature review, we identify challenges and research opportunities that focus on the searcher, search engine, and their complex interplay. We outline a research agenda that provides a foundation for research efforts toward addressing these challenges.

Powerful predictive AI systems have demonstrated great potential in augmenting human decision making. Recent empirical work has argued that the vision for optimal human-AI collaboration requires ‘appropriate reliance’ on AI systems. However, accurately estimating the trustworthiness of AI advice at the instance level is quite challenging, especially in the absence of performance feedback pertaining to the AI system. In practice, the performance disparity of machine learning models on out-of-distribution data makes the dataset-specific performance feedback unreliable in human-AI collaboration. Inspired by existing literature on critical thinking and mindsets, we propose debugging an AI system as an intervention to foster appropriate reliance. This paper explores whether a critical evaluation of AI performance within a debugging setting can better calibrate users’ assessment of an AI system. Through a quantitative empirical study (N = 234), we found that our proposed debugging intervention does not work as expected in facilitating appropriate reliance. Instead, we observe a decrease in reliance on the AI system — potentially resulting from an early exposure to the AI system’s weakness. Our findings have important implications for designing effective interventions to facilitate appropriate reliance and better human-AI collaboration.

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.

Concepts are an important construct in semantics, based on which humans understand the world with various levels of abstraction. With the recent advances in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), concept-level explanations are receiving an increasing amount of attention from the broad research community. However, laypeople may find such explanations difficult to digest due to the potential knowledge gap and the concomitant cognitive load. Inspired by prior work that has explored analogies and sensemaking, we argue that augmenting concept-level explanations with analogical inference information from commonsense knowledge can be a potential solution to tackle this issue. To investigate the validity of our proposition, we first designed an effective analogy-based explanation generation method and collected 600 analogy-based explanations from 100 crowd workers. Next, we proposed a set of structured dimensions for the qualitative assessment of such explanations, and conducted an empirical evaluation of the generated analogies with experts. Our findings revealed significant positive correlations between the qualitative dimensions of analogies and the perceived helpfulness of analogy-based explanations, suggesting the effectiveness of the dimensions. To understand the practical utility and the effectiveness of analogybased explanations in assisting human decision-making, we conducted a follow-up empirical study (N = 280) on a skin cancer detection task with non-expert humans and an imperfect AI system. Thus, we designed a between-subjects study spanning five different experimental conditions with varying types of explanations. The results of our study confirmed that a knowledge gap can prevent participants from understanding concept-level explanations. Consequently, when only the target domain of our designed analogy-based explanation was provided (in a specific experimental condition), participants demonstrated relatively more appropriate reliance on the AI system. In contrast to our expectations, we found that analogies were not effective in fostering appropriate reliance. We carried out a qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses from participants in the study regarding their perceived usefulness of explanations and analogies. Our findings suggest that human intuition and the perceived plausibility of analogies may have played a role in affecting user reliance on the AI system. We also found that the understanding of commonsense explanations varied with the varying experience of the recipient user, which points out the need for further work on personalization when leveraging commonsense explanations. In summary, although we did not find quantitative support for our hypotheses around the benefits of using analogies, we found considerable qualitative evidence suggesting the potential of high-quality analogies in aiding non-expert users in their decision making with AI-assistance. These insights can inform the design of future methods for the generation and use of effective analogy-based explanations.

With the integration of AI systems into our daily lives, human-AI collaboration has become increasingly prevalent. Prior work in this realm has primarily explored the effectiveness and performance of individual human and AI systems in collaborative tasks. While much of decision-making occurs within human peers and groups in the real world, there is a limited understanding of how they collaborate with AI systems. One of the key predictors of human-AI collaboration is the characteristics of the task at hand. Understanding the influence of task characteristics on human-AI collaboration is crucial for enhancing team performance and developing effective strategies for collaboration. Addressing a research and empirical gap, we seek to explore how the features of a task impact decision-making within human-AI group settings. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects study (N = 256) we examine the effects of task complexity and uncertainty on group performance and behaviour. The participants were grouped into pairs and assigned to one of four experimental conditions characterized by varying degrees of complexity and uncertainty. We found that high task complexity and high task uncertainty can negatively impact the performance of human-AI groups, leading to decreased group accuracy and increased disagreement with the AI system. We found that higher task complexity led to a higher efficiency in decision-making, while a higher task uncertainty had a negative impact on efficiency. Our findings highlight the importance of considering task characteristics when designing human-AI collaborative systems, as well as the future design of empirical studies exploring human-AI collaboration.

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.