Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions
Jessica Hullman, Alex Kale, Jason D. Hartline
Abstract
Decision-making with information displays is a key focus of research in areas like human-AI collaboration and data visualization.
However, what constitutes a decision problem, and what is required for an experiment to conclude that decisions are flawed, remain imprecise. We present a widely applicable definition of a decision problem synthesized from statistical decision theory and information economics. We claim that to attribute loss in human performance to bias, an experiment must provide the information that a rational agent would need to identify the normative decision. We evaluate whether recent empirical research on AI-assisted decisions achieves this standard. We find that only 10 (26%) of 39 studies that claim to identify biased behavior presented participants with sufficient information to make this claim in at least one treatment condition. We motivate the value of studying well-defined decision problems by describing a characterization of performance losses they allow to be conceived.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext e9a54f63-fae0-43a6-8c6f-7327dafc0ff7Cited by top-tier papers4
- Evaluating the Utility of Conformal Prediction Sets for AI-Advised Image LabelingDongping Zhang, Angelos Chatzimparmpas, Negar Kamali, Jessica HullmanCHI 2024 · 5 citations
- Graphical Perception of Icon Arrays versus Bar Charts for Value Comparisons in Health Risk CommunicationJade Kandel, Jiayi Liu, Arran Zeyu Wang, Chin Tseng et al.IEEE VIS 2025 · 3 citations
- Venire: A Machine Learning-Guided Panel Review System for Community Content ModerationVinay Koshy, Frederick Choi, Yi-Shyuan Chiang, Hari Sundaram et al.CSCW 2025 · 1 citation
- Explanations are a Means to an End: Decision Theoretic Explanation EvaluationZiyang Guo, Berk Ustun, Jessica HullmanICML 2026
Builds on18
- To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-makingZana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, Krzysztof Z. GajosCSCW 2021 · 962 citations
- Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team PerformanceGagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok et al.CHI 2021 · 713 citations
- Manipulating and Measuring Model InterpretabilityForough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G. Goldstein, Jake M. Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan et al.CHI 2021 · 663 citations
- No Explainability without Accountability: An Empirical Study of Explanations and Feedback in Interactive MLAlison Smith-Renner, Ron Fan, Melissa Birchfield, Tongshuang Wu et al.CHI 2020 · 117 citations
- Mental Models of AI Agents in a Cooperative Game SettingKaty Ilonka Gero, Zahra Ashktorab, Casey Dugan, Qian Pan et al.CHI 2020 · 116 citations
Related papers
- The Rational Agent Benchmark for Data VisualizationYifan Wu, Ziyang Guo, Michalis Mamakos, Jason D. Hartline et al.IEEE VIS 2023 · 8 citations
- Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-makingCharvi Rastogi, Yunfeng Zhang, Dennis Wei, Kush R. Varshney et al.CSCW 2022 · 184 citations
- The Role of Heuristics and Biases during Complex Choices with an AI TeammateNikolos Gurney, John H. Miller, David V. PynadathAAAI 2023 · 5 citations
- Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI BehaviorÁngel Alexander Cabrera, Adam Perer, Jason I. HongCSCW 2023 · 85 citations
- The Impact of Imperfect XAI on Human-AI Decision-MakingKatelyn Morrison, Philipp Spitzer, Violet Turri, Michelle Feng et al.CSCW 2024 · 60 citations
