arXiv subjects

Alessandro Bogani

Publications and source records attributed to Alessandro Bogani.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Too Much of the Same: From Algorithmic to Human Bias in Learning to Defer

Learning to Defer (LtD) extends supervised learning by allowing a Machine Learning (ML) model to defer harder or less confident decisions to a human expert. Despite being geared for human-AI collaboration, LtD strategies neglect the potential negative interference of human cognitive biases. Our contribution is twofold. First, we demonstrate that standard LtD strategies show class-dependent sampling bias in classification tasks in practice, and thus may disproportionately defer the minority classes when applied to imbalanced datasets. Second, we show that such asymmetries in task delegation may trigger human biases, ultimately leading to poorer downstream decision making. Specifically, we conduct a user study ($N=226$) where participants complete a classification task on a set of deferred items, with conditions presenting different levels of class imbalance. Our results show that participants exposed to a highly imbalanced rejection set achieved lower classification accuracy in the majority class compared to those exposed to a more balanced set, regardless of which class constituted the majority. Exploratory analyses suggest that this may be an instance of the Test-taker's effect, which stems from a mismatch between the actual distribution of classes and the participants' expectations about that distribution. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for the deployment of LtD algorithms.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Are Concept Bottleneck Models Effective as Decision-Support Systems?

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are interpretable-by-design neural networks that detect human-understandable concepts from the input and use them to generate predictions. By allowing users to inspect the concepts underlying a prediction and explore how predictions change under alternative concept configurations, CBMs have emerged as one of the most prominent approaches to supporting human-AI collaboration. However, user studies investigating their actual effectiveness as decision-support systems remain limited. We present two large-scale user studies (N participants = 705, N observations = 6,959) evaluating how concept-based explanations and user interventions on the model's concepts affect the performance of the human-AI team in two distinct binary classification tasks. Our results show that CBMs, and particularly their interactive component, can improve human-AI team accuracy relative to both unaided human performance and performance with non-interpretable AI support. However, these benefits emerge only under certain conditions: classification tasks perceived as difficult, easily identifiable concepts, and active interaction with the model. We also discuss how inaccurate concept detection may undermine users' trust in the model. Overall, this work provides practical guidance for the deployment of CBMs as effective decision-support tools.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Human Cognitive Biases in Explanation-Based Interaction: The Case of Within and Between Session Order Effect

Explanatory Interactive Learning (XIL) is a powerful interactive learning framework designed to enable users to customize and correct AI models by interacting with their explanations. In a nutshell, XIL algorithms select a number of items on which an AI model made a decision (e.g. images and their tags) and present them to users, together with corresponding explanations (e.g. image regions that drive the model's decision). Then, users supply corrective feedback for the explanations, which the algorithm uses to improve the model. Despite showing promise in debugging tasks, recent studies have raised concerns that explanatory interaction may trigger order effects, a well-known cognitive bias in which the sequence of presented items influences users' trust and, critically, the quality of their feedback. We argue that these studies are not entirely conclusive, as the experimental designs and tasks employed differ substantially from common XIL use cases, complicating interpretation. To clarify the interplay between order effects and explanatory interaction, we ran two larger-scale user studies (n = 713 total) designed to mimic common XIL tasks. Specifically, we assessed order effects both within and between debugging sessions by manipulating the order in which correct and wrong explanations are presented to participants. Order effects had a limited, through significant impact on users' agreement with the model (i.e., a behavioral measure of their trust), and only when examined withing debugging sessions, not between them. The quality of users' feedback was generally satisfactory, with order effects exerting only a small and inconsistent influence in both experiments. Overall, our findings suggest that order effects do not pose a significant issue for the successful employment of XIL approaches. More broadly, our work contributes to the ongoing efforts for understanding human factors in AI.

cs.AI↗