Aligning Judgment Using Task Context and Explanations to Improve Human-Recommender System Performance

TL;DR

This study compares the effectiveness of providing task context versus algorithmic explanations in aligning human and AI judgments within recommender systems, finding both methods improve decision confidence and understanding, with context reducing over-reliance.

Contribution

The paper introduces an empirical comparison showing that shared task context can effectively align human-AI judgment, offering an alternative to post-hoc explanations for improving performance.

Findings

Both methods increased decision confidence.

Task context reduced over-reliance on AI.

Both methods had minimal impact on mental demand and frustration.

Abstract

Recommender systems, while a powerful decision making tool, are often operationalized as black box models, such that their AI algorithms are not accessible or interpretable by human operators. This in turn can cause confusion and frustration for the operator and result in unsatisfactory outcomes. While the field of explainable AI has made remarkable strides in addressing this challenge by focusing on interpreting and explaining the algorithms to human operators, there are remaining gaps in the human's understanding of the recommender system. This paper investigates the relative impact of using context, properties of the decision making task and environment, to align human and AI algorithm understanding of the state of the world, i.e. judgment, to improve joint human-recommender performance as compared to utilizing post-hoc algorithmic explanations. We conducted an empirical, between-subjects experiment in which participants were asked to work with an automated recommender system to complete a decision making task. We manipulated the method of transparency (shared contextual information to support shared judgment vs algorithmic explanations) and record the human's understanding of the task, the recommender system, and their overall performance. We found that both techniques yielded equivalent agreement on final decisions. However, those who saw task context had less tendency to over-rely on the recommender system and were able to better pinpoint in what conditions the AI erred. Both methods improved participants' confidence in their own decision making, and increased mental demand equally and frustration negligibly. These results present an alternative approach to improving team performance to post-hoc explanations and illustrate the impact of judgment on human cognition in working with recommender systems.