Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.16812 v2 pith:4JDZ3F5Y submitted 2024-03-25 cs.HC cs.AI

classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords deliberativehumansai-assisteddecision-makingdeliberationhuman-aiconflictingdecision
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole. In such a paradigm, humans are found to rarely trigger analytical thinking and face difficulties in communicating the nuances of conflicting opinions to the AI when disagreements occur. To tackle this challenge, we propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making. Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates. To empower AI with deliberative capabilities, we designed Deliberative AI, which leverages large language models (LLMs) as a bridge between humans and domain-specific models to enable flexible conversational interactions and faithful information provision. An exploratory evaluation on a graduate admissions task shows that Deliberative AI outperforms conventional explainable AI (XAI) assistants in improving humans' appropriate reliance and task performance. Based on a mixed-methods analysis of participant behavior, perception, user experience, and open-ended feedback, we draw implications for future AI-assisted decision tool design.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understanding Fortunetelling with Large Language Models in China: User Practices, Perceptions, and Impacts on Beliefs and Decisions

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Chinese users treat LLM fortunetelling as entertainment and emotional support; it subtly shifts confidence and timing but rarely reverses decisions.

  2. Wisdom of the Crowd, Without the Crowd: A Socratic LLM for Asynchronous Deliberation on Perspectivist Data

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Socratic LLM that questions annotators during labeling improved post-deliberation accuracy and confidence compared to a prior synchronous human-deliberation benchmark.

  3. Democracy-in-Silico: Institutional Design as Alignment in AI-Governed Polities

    cs.AI 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    In an LLM-agent simulation, adding a constitutional charter and an AI mediator reduces a text-based power-preservation score, suggesting institutional design as an alignment lever.

  4. OpenReview Should be Protected and Leveraged as a Community Asset for Research in the Era of Large Language Models

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper advocates protecting and leveraging OpenReview's peer review corpus as a community asset for LLM-based review assistance, benchmarks, and alignment.

Pith tools