arXiv subjects

Andreas Duenser

Publications and source records attributed to Andreas Duenser.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Using a Human-AI Teaming Approach to Create and Curate Scientific Datasets with the SCILIRE System

The rapid growth of scientific literature has made manual extraction of structured knowledge increasingly impractical. To address this challenge, we introduce SCILIRE, a system for creating datasets from scientific literature. SCILIRE has been designed around Human-AI teaming principles centred on workflows for verifying and curating data. It facilitates an iterative workflow in which researchers can review and correct AI outputs. Furthermore, this interaction is used as a feedback signal to improve future LLM-based inference. We evaluate our design using a combination of intrinsic benchmarking outcomes together with real-world case studies across multiple domains. The results demonstrate that SCILIRE improves extraction fidelity and facilitates efficient dataset creation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

To Believe or Not To Believe: Comparing Supporting Information Tools to Aid Human Judgments of AI Veracity

With increasing awareness of the hallucination risks of generative artificial intelligence (AI), we see a growing shift toward providing information tooling to help users determine the veracity of AI-generated answers for themselves. User responsibility for assessing veracity is particularly critical for certain sectors that rely on on-demand, AI-generated data extraction, such as biomedical research and the legal sector. While prior work offers us a variety of ways in which systems can provide such support, there is a lack of empirical evidence on how this information is actually incorporated into the user's decision-making process. Our user study takes a step toward filling this knowledge gap. In the context of a generative AI data extraction tool, we examine the relationship between the type of supporting information (full source text, passage retrieval, and Large Language Model (LLM) explanations) and user behavior in the veracity assessment process, examined through the lens of efficiency, effectiveness, reliance and trust. We find that passage retrieval offers a reasonable compromise between accuracy and speed, with judgments of veracity comparable to using the full source text. LLM explanations, while also enabling rapid assessments, fostered inappropriate reliance and trust on the data extraction AI, such that participants were less likely to detect errors. In additiona, we analyzed the impacts of the complexity of the information need, finding preliminary evidence that inappropriate reliance is worse for complex answers. We demonstrate how, through rigorous user evaluation, we can better develop systems that allow for effective and responsible human agency in veracity assessment processes.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Towards a criteria-based approach to selecting human-AI interaction mode

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are now prevalent in many knowledge work industries. As AI becomes more capable and interactive, there is a growing need for guidance on how to employ AI most effectively. The A2C framework (Tariq, Chhetri, Nepal & Paris, 2024) distinguishes three decision-making modes for engaging AI: automation (AI completes a task, including decision/action), augmentation (AI supports human to decide) and collaboration (iterative interaction between human and AI). However, selecting the appropriate mode for a specific application is not always straightforward. The goal of the present study was to compile and trial a simple set of criteria to support recommendations about appropriate A2C mode for a given application. Drawing on human factors and computer science literature, we identified key criteria related to elements of the task, impacts on worker and support needs. From these criteria we built a scoring rubric with recommendation for A2C mode. As a preliminary test of this approach, we applied the criteria to cognitive task analysis (CTA) outputs from three tasks in the science domain - genome annotation, biological collections curation and protein crystallization - which provided insights into worker decision points, challenges and expert strategies. This paper describes the method for connecting CTA to A2C, reflecting on the challenges and future directions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Collaborative human-AI trust (CHAI-T): A process framework for active management of trust in human-AI collaboration

Collaborative human-AI (HAI) teaming combines the unique skills and capabilities of humans and machines in sustained teaming interactions leveraging the strengths of each. In tasks involving regular exposure to novelty and uncertainty, collaboration between adaptive, creative humans and powerful, precise artificial intelligence (AI) promises new solutions and efficiencies. User trust is essential to creating and maintaining these collaborative relationships. Established models of trust in traditional forms of AI typically recognize the contribution of three primary categories of trust antecedents: characteristics of the human user, characteristics of the technology, and environmental factors. The emergence of HAI teams, however, requires an understanding of human trust that accounts for the specificity of task contexts and goals, integrates processes of interaction, and captures how trust evolves in a teaming environment over time. Drawing on both the psychological and computer science literature, the process framework of trust in collaborative HAI teams (CHAI-T) presented in this paper adopts the tripartite structure of antecedents established by earlier models, while incorporating team processes and performance phases to capture the dynamism inherent to trust in teaming contexts. These features enable active management of trust in collaborative AI systems, with practical implications for the design and deployment of collaborative HAI teams.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Who to Trust, How and Why: Untangling AI Ethics Principles, Trustworthiness and Trust

We present an overview of the literature on trust in AI and AI trustworthiness and argue for the need to distinguish these concepts more clearly and to gather more empirically evidence on what contributes to people s trusting behaviours. We discuss that trust in AI involves not only reliance on the system itself, but also trust in the developers of the AI system. AI ethics principles such as explainability and transparency are often assumed to promote user trust, but empirical evidence of how such features actually affect how users perceive the system s trustworthiness is not as abundance or not that clear. AI systems should be recognised as socio-technical systems, where the people involved in designing, developing, deploying, and using the system are as important as the system for determining whether it is trustworthy. Without recognising these nuances, trust in AI and trustworthy AI risk becoming nebulous terms for any desirable feature for AI systems.

cs.AI↗