REVIEW 2 cited by
A Meta-Analysis of the Utility of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Human-AI 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
read the original abstract
Research in artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted decision-making is experiencing tremendous growth with a constantly rising number of studies evaluating the effect of AI with and without techniques from the field of explainable AI (XAI) on human decision-making performance. However, as tasks and experimental setups vary due to different objectives, some studies report improved user decision-making performance through XAI, while others report only negligible effects. Therefore, in this article, we present an initial synthesis of existing research on XAI studies using a statistical meta-analysis to derive implications across existing research. We observe a statistically positive impact of XAI on users' performance. Additionally, the first results indicate that human-AI decision-making tends to yield better task performance on text data. However, we find no effect of explanations on users' performance compared to sole AI predictions. Our initial synthesis gives rise to future research investigating the underlying causes and contributes to further developing algorithms that effectively benefit human decision-makers by providing meaningful explanations.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Let people fail! Exploring the influence of explainable virtual and robotic agents in learning-by-doing tasks
People who practiced a simulated task without AI help learned it better than people who got explainable computer or robot assistance.
-
An Empirical Examination of the Evaluative AI Framework
A pre-registered experiment found that an AI providing only pro and con evidence, without recommendations, did not improve decision performance and was used shallowly by participants.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.