Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: A Survey of Empirical Studies

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 2112.11471 v1 pith:7KGMJSP4 submitted 2021-12-21 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CYcs.HCcs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.CYcs.HCcs.LG
keywords decisionmakinghuman-airesearchempiricalsurveydesignmake
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As AI systems demonstrate increasingly strong predictive performance, their adoption has grown in numerous domains. However, in high-stakes domains such as criminal justice and healthcare, full automation is often not desirable due to safety, ethical, and legal concerns, yet fully manual approaches can be inaccurate and time consuming. As a result, there is growing interest in the research community to augment human decision making with AI assistance. Besides developing AI technologies for this purpose, the emerging field of human-AI decision making must embrace empirical approaches to form a foundational understanding of how humans interact and work with AI to make decisions. To invite and help structure research efforts towards a science of understanding and improving human-AI decision making, we survey recent literature of empirical human-subject studies on this topic. We summarize the study design choices made in over 100 papers in three important aspects: (1) decision tasks, (2) AI models and AI assistance elements, and (3) evaluation metrics. For each aspect, we summarize current trends, discuss gaps in current practices of the field, and make a list of recommendations for future research. Our survey highlights the need to develop common frameworks to account for the design and research spaces of human-AI decision making, so that researchers can make rigorous choices in study design, and the research community can build on each other's work and produce generalizable scientific knowledge. We also hope this survey will serve as a bridge for HCI and AI communities to work together to mutually shape the empirical science and computational technologies for human-AI decision making.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Training with (Swap) Regret Loss in a Single-Layer Self-Attention Model: A Case Study on the Probability Simplex

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Training single-layer attention with squared regret loss has stationary points that implement smoothed fictitious play (external regret) and, via a new swap-regret loss, the Blum–Mansour no-swap-regret algorithm.

  2. RuleEdit: Failure-Guided Human-AI Model Editing with Prospective Impact Preview

    cs.HC 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Rule-guided mismatch cues raise Human+AI rehab-assessment accuracy by 14% and cut harmful reliance; prospective embedding previews raise local model-edit gains from 11.5% to 36%, with global transfer often regressing.

  3. Data-driven Progressive Discovery of Physical Laws

    cs.LG 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    CoSR discovers physical laws via progressive chains of symbolic knowledge units, recovering Kepler-to-Newton and improving scaling laws in convection, pipe flow, laser-metal interaction, and aircraft aerodynamics.

  4. Towards Uncertainty Aware Task Delegation and Human-AI Collaborative Decision-Making

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Distance-based uncertainty visualizations with interactive examples improved correct decisions by 8.20 percentage points over numeric confidence scores in a 27-participant stroke rehabilitation study.

  5. Human-Centered Explainability in Interactive Information Systems: A Survey

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 100 empirical user studies synthesizes explainability research into five conceptual dimensions, a design classification, and six measurement categories.

Pith tools