SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2507.17597

Human-AI Collaboration and Explainability for 2D/3D Registration Quality Assurance

Abstract

Purpose: As surgery increasingly integrates advanced imaging, algorithms, and robotics to automate complex tasks, human judgment of system correctness remains a vital safeguard for patient safety. A critical example is 2D/3D registration, where small registration misalignments can lead to surgical errors. Current visualization strategies alone are insufficient to reliably enable humans to detect these misalignments, highlighting the need for enhanced decision-support tools. Methods: We propose the first artificial intelligence (AI) model tailored to 2D/3D registration quality assessment, augmented with explainable AI (XAI) mechanisms to clarify the model's predictions. Using both objective measures (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, precision, specificity) and subjective evaluations (e.g., workload, trust, and understanding), we systematically compare decision-making across four conditions: AI-only, Human-only, Human+AI, and Human+XAI. Results: The AI-only condition achieved the highest accuracy, whereas collaborative paradigms (Human+AI and Human+XAI) improved sensitivity, precision, and specificity compared to standalone approaches. Participants experienced significantly lower workload in collaborative conditions relative to the Human-only condition. Moreover, participants reported a greater understanding of AI predictions in the Human+XAI condition than in Human+AI, although no significant differences were observed between the two collaborative paradigms in perceived trust or workload. Conclusion: Human-AI collaboration can enhance 2D/3D registration quality assurance, with explainability mechanisms improving user understanding. Future work should refine XAI designs to optimize decision-making performance and efficiency. Extending both the algorithmic design and human-XAI collaboration elements holds promise for more robust quality assurance of 2D/3D registration.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sue Min Cho, Alexander Do, Russell H. Taylor, Mathias Unberath. 2025-07-23. Human-AI Collaboration and Explainability for 2D/3D Registration Quality Assurance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17597

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC