Organizations collect growing volumes of data to extract value through analytics. However, this data growth creates challenges for effective data understanding, which forms the foundation for reliable decision-making and effective AI systems. Established analytics frameworks such as CRISP-DM and KDD acknowledge this importance but provide limited guidance to achieve this understanding, particularly for data-centric AI requiring collaboration across stakeholder groups. To address this gap, the authors conducted a systematic literature review, developing a five-dimensional framework for data understanding. They then performed a systematic mapping study analyzing how existing methods support these dimensions and accommodate different target audiences. The analysis reveals critical gaps in current methods, particularly in systematically supporting the understanding of data collection and contextualization. While most methods target data experts, the authors find a notable lack of methods supporting domain experts and decision-makers. This research advances both theoretical understanding by identifying the key dimensions that constitute data understanding and practical implementation by providing organizations with guidance on building data understanding.

The rapid advancements of artificial intelligence (AI) have led to its widespread adoption in enhancing productivity across various domains, including both personal productivity and workplace efficiency. Despite these advancements, the effective onboarding of novices, particularly in complex environments with extensive documentation, remains a significant challenge. Therefore, this paper explores the design of AI assistants to support novices. Utilizing a design science research approach, we collaborate with a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer to develop and evaluate an AI assistant to support novices during their onboarding. Grounded in scaffolding theory, we identify two design requirements and propose three design principles: Metadata Filtering, Graduated Complexity, and Sequential Query Generation. The evaluation of these principles demonstrates the AI assistant's effectiveness in generating accurate and contextually relevant responses, facilitating the onboarding of novices. This study provides valuable insights into the design of AI assistants, contributing to the theoretical understanding of AI-driven scaffolding and practical applications in complex industrial settings.

Information systems increasingly leverage artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to generate value from vast amounts of data. However, ML models are imperfect and can generate incorrect classifications. Hence, human-in-the-loop (HITL) extensions to ML models add a human review for instances that are difficult to classify. This study argues that continuously relying on human experts to handle difficult model classifications leads to a strong increase in human effort, which strains limited resources. To address this issue, we propose a hybrid system that creates artificial experts that learn to classify data instances from unknown classes previously reviewed by human experts. Our hybrid system assesses which artificial expert is suitable for classifying an instance from an unknown class and automatically assigns it. Over time, this reduces human effort and increases the efficiency of the system. Our experiments demonstrate that our approach outperforms traditional HITL systems for several benchmarks on image classification.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to significantly enhance human performance across various domains. Ideally, collaboration between humans and AI should result in complementary team performance (CTP) -- a level of performance that neither of them can attain individually. So far, however, CTP has rarely been observed, suggesting an insufficient understanding of the principle and the application of complementarity. Therefore, we develop a general concept of complementarity and formalize its theoretical potential as well as the actual realized effect in decision-making situations. Moreover, we identify information and capability asymmetry as the two key sources of complementarity. Finally, we illustrate the impact of each source on complementarity potential and effect in two empirical studies. Our work provides researchers with a comprehensive theoretical foundation of human-AI complementarity in decision-making and demonstrates that leveraging these sources constitutes a viable pathway towards designing effective human-AI collaboration, i.e., the realization of CTP.

Recent work has proposed AI models that can learn to decide whether to make a prediction for a task instance or to delegate it to a human by considering both parties’ capabilities. In simulations with synthetically generated or context-independent human predictions, delegation can help improve the performance of human-AI teams—compared to humans or the AI model completing the task alone. However, so far, it remains unclear how humans perform and how they perceive the task when individual instances of a task are delegated to them by an AI model. In an experimental study with 196 participants, we show that task performance and task satisfaction improve for the instances delegated by the AI model, regardless of whether humans are aware of the delegation. Additionally, we identify humans’ increased levels of self-efficacy as the underlying mechanism for these improvements in performance and satisfaction, and one dimension of cognitive ability as a moderator to this effect. In particular, AI delegation can buffer potential negative effects on task performance and task satisfaction for humans with low visual processing ability. Our findings provide initial evidence that allowing AI models to take over more management responsibilities can be an effective form of human-AI collaboration in workplaces.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into human decision-making processes at the workplace presents both opportunities and challenges. One promising approach to leverage existing complementary capabilities is allowing humans to delegate individual instances of decision tasks to AI. However, enabling humans to delegate instances effectively requires them to assess several factors. One key factor is the analysis of both their own capabilities and those of the AI in the context of the given task. In this work, we conduct a behavioral study to explore the effects of providing contextual information to support this delegation decision. Specifically, we investigate how contextual information about the AI and the task domain influence humans' delegation decisions to an AI and their impact on the human-AI team performance. Our findings reveal that access to contextual information significantly improves human-AI team performance in delegation settings. Finally, we show that the delegation behavior changes with the different types of contextual information. Overall, this research advances the understanding of computer-supported, collaborative work and provides actionable insights for designing more effective collaborative systems.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly support decision-making across a broad range of domains. The complexity of real-world tasks, however, introduces uncertainty into the prediction capabilities of these systems. This uncertainty can manifest as aleatoric uncertainty arising from inherent variability in outcomes or epistemic uncertainty stemming from limitations in the AI system's knowledge. While prior research has investigated uncertainty as a monolithic concept, the distinct effects of communicating aleatoric or epistemic uncertainty on humans and their reliance behavior remain unexplored. In this work, we present two behavioral experiments that systematically examine how participants rely on AI advice when faced with different types of uncertainty. While the first experiment manipulates the source of uncertainty, specifying it as either aleatoric or epistemic, the second decomposes uncertainty into its individual components, presenting aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty simultaneously. This work contributes to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted impact of different uncertainty types on human-AI interaction.

In AI-assisted decision-making, a central promise of having a human-in-the-loop is that they should be able to complement the AI system by overriding its wrong recommendations. In practice, however, we often see that humans cannot assess the correctness of AI recommendations and, as a result, adhere to wrong or override correct advice. Different ways of relying on AI recommendations have immediate, yet distinct, implications for decision quality. Unfortunately, reliance and decision quality are often inappropriately conflated in the current literature on AI-assisted decision-making. In this work, we disentangle and formalize the relationship between reliance and decision quality, and we characterize the conditions under which human-AI complementarity is achievable. To illustrate how reliance and decision quality relate to one another, we propose a visual framework and demonstrate its usefulness for interpreting empirical findings, including the effects of interventions like explanations. Overall, our research highlights the importance of distinguishing between reliance behavior and decision quality in AI-assisted decision-making.

Identifying and handling label errors can significantly enhance the accuracy of supervised machine learning models. Recent approaches for identifying label errors demonstrate that a low self-confidence of models with respect to a certain label represents a good indicator of an erroneous label. However, latest work has built on softmax probabilities to measure self-confidence. In this paper, we argue that -- as softmax probabilities do not reflect a model's predictive uncertainty accurately -- label error detection requires more sophisticated measures of model uncertainty. Therefore, we develop a range of novel, model-agnostic algorithms for Uncertainty Quantification-Based Label Error Detection (UQ-LED), which combine the techniques of confident learning (CL), Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD), model uncertainty measures (e.g., entropy), and ensemble learning to enhance label error detection. We comprehensively evaluate our algorithms on four image classification benchmark datasets in two stages. In the first stage, we demonstrate that our UQ-LED algorithms outperform state-of-the-art confident learning in identifying label errors. In the second stage, we show that removing all identified errors from the training data based on our approach results in higher accuracies than training on all available labeled data. Importantly, besides our contributions to the detection of label errors, we particularly propose a novel approach to generate realistic, class-dependent label errors synthetically. Overall, our study demonstrates that selectively cleaning datasets with UQ-LED algorithms leads to more accurate classifications than using larger, noisier datasets.

In recent years, the rapid development of AI systems has brought about the benefits of intelligent services but also concerns about security and reliability. By fostering appropriate user reliance on an AI system, both complementary team performance and reduced human workload can be achieved. Previous empirical studies have extensively analyzed the impact of factors ranging from task, system, and human behavior on user trust and appropriate reliance in the context of one-step decision making. However, user reliance on AI systems in tasks with complex semantics that require multi-step workflows remains under-explored. Inspired by recent work on task decomposition with large language models, we propose to investigate the impact of a novel Multi-Step Transparent (MST) decision workflow on user reliance behaviors. We conducted an empirical study (N = 233) of AI-assisted decision making in composite fact-checking tasks (i.e., fact-checking tasks that entail multiple sub-fact verification steps). Our findings demonstrate that human-AI collaboration with an MST decision workflow can outperform one-step collaboration in specific contexts (e.g., when advice from an AI system is misleading). Further analysis of the appropriate reliance at fine-grained levels indicates that an MST decision workflow can be effective when users demonstrate a relatively high consideration of the intermediate steps. Our work highlights that there is no one-size-fits-all decision workflow that can help obtain optimal human-AI collaboration. Our insights help deepen the understanding of the role of decision workflows in facilitating appropriate reliance. We synthesize important implications for designing effective means to facilitate appropriate reliance on AI systems in composite tasks, positioning opportunities for the human-centered AI and broader HCI communities.

Data-centric artificial intelligence (data-centric AI) represents an emerging paradigm that emphasizes the importance of enhancing data systematically and at scale to build effective and efficient AI-based systems. The novel paradigm complements recent model-centric AI, which focuses on improving the performance of AI-based systems based on changes in the model using a fixed set of data. The objective of this article is to introduce practitioners and researchers from the field of Business and Information Systems Engineering (BISE) to data-centric AI. The paper defines relevant terms, provides key characteristics to contrast the paradigm of data-centric AI with the model-centric one, and introduces a framework to illustrate the different dimensions of data-centric AI. In addition, an overview of available tools for data-centric AI is presented and this novel paradigm is differenciated from related concepts. Finally, the paper discusses the longer-term implications of data-centric AI for the BISE community.

A significant challenge in image-guided surgery is the accurate measurement task of relevant structures such as vessel segments, resection margins, or bowel lengths. While this task is an essential component of many surgeries, it involves substantial human effort and is prone to inaccuracies. In this paper, we develop a novel human-AI-based method for laparoscopic measurements utilizing stereo vision that has been guided by practicing surgeons. Based on a holistic qualitative requirements analysis, this work proposes a comprehensive measurement method, which comprises state-of-the-art machine learning architectures, such as RAFT-Stereo and YOLOv8. The developed method is assessed in various realistic experimental evaluation environments. Our results outline the potential of our method achieving high accuracies in distance measurements with errors below 1 mm. Furthermore, on-surface measurements demonstrate robustness when applied in challenging environments with textureless regions. Overall, by addressing the inherent challenges of image-guided surgery, we lay the foundation for a more robust and accurate solution for intra- and postoperative measurements, enabling more precise, safe, and efficient surgical procedures.

As organizations face the challenges of processing exponentially growing data volumes, their reliance on analytics to unlock value from this data has intensified. However, the intricacies of big data, such as its extensive feature sets, pose significant challenges. A crucial step in leveraging this data for insightful analysis is an in-depth understanding of both the data and its domain. Yet, existing literature presents a fragmented picture of what comprises an effective understanding of data and domain, varying significantly in depth and focus. To address this research gap, we conduct a systematic literature review, aiming to delineate the dimensions of data understanding. We identify five dimensions: Foundations, Collection Selection, Contextualization Integration, Exploration Discovery, and Insights. These dimensions collectively form a comprehensive framework for data understanding, providing guidance for organizations seeking meaningful insights from complex datasets. This study synthesizes the current state of knowledge and lays the groundwork for further exploration.

While semantic segmentation has seen tremendous improvements in the past, there are still significant labeling efforts necessary and the problem of limited generalization to classes that have not been present during training. To address this problem, zero-shot semantic segmentation makes use of large self-supervised vision-language models, allowing zero-shot transfer to unseen classes. In this work, we build a benchmark for Multi-domain Evaluation of Semantic Segmentation (MESS), which allows a holistic analysis of performance across a wide range of domain-specific datasets such as medicine, engineering, earth monitoring, biology, and agriculture. To do this, we reviewed 120 datasets, developed a taxonomy, and classified the datasets according to the developed taxonomy. We select a representative subset consisting of 22 datasets and propose it as the MESS benchmark. We evaluate eight recently published models on the proposed MESS benchmark and analyze characteristics for the performance of zero-shot transfer models. The toolkit is available at https://github.com/blumenstiel/MESS.

In AI-assisted decision-making, a central promise of putting a human in the loop is that they should be able to complement the AI system by adhering to its correct and overriding its mistaken recommendations. In practice, however, we often see that humans tend to over- or under-rely on AI recommendations, meaning that they either adhere to wrong or override correct recommendations. Such reliance behavior is detrimental to decision-making accuracy. In this work, we articulate and analyze the interdependence between reliance behavior and accuracy in AI-assisted decision-making, which has been largely neglected in prior work. We also propose a visual framework to make this interdependence more tangible. This framework helps us interpret and compare empirical findings, as well as obtain a nuanced understanding of the effects of interventions (e.g., explanations) in AI-assisted decision-making. Finally, we infer several interesting properties from the framework: (i) when humans under-rely on AI recommendations, there may be no possibility for them to complement the AI in terms of decision-making accuracy; (ii) when humans cannot discern correct and wrong AI recommendations, no such improvement can be expected either; (iii) interventions may lead to an increase in decision-making accuracy that is solely driven by an increase in humans' adherence to AI recommendations, without any ability to discern correct and wrong. Our work emphasizes the importance of measuring and reporting both effects on accuracy and reliance behavior when empirically assessing interventions.

With the increased adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in industry and society, effective human-AI interaction systems are becoming increasingly important. A central challenge in the interaction of humans with AI is the estimation of difficulty for human and AI agents for single task instances.These estimations are crucial to evaluate each agent's capabilities and, thus, required to facilitate effective collaboration. So far, research in the field of human-AI interaction estimates the perceived difficulty of humans and AI independently from each other. However, the effective interaction of human and AI agents depends on metrics that accurately reflect each agent's perceived difficulty in achieving valuable outcomes. Research to date has not yet adequately examined the differences in the perceived difficulty of humans and AI. Thus, this work reviews recent research on the perceived difficulty in human-AI interaction and contributing factors to consistently compare each agent's perceived difficulty, e.g., creating the same prerequisites. Furthermore, we present an experimental design to thoroughly examine the perceived difficulty of both agents and contribute to a better understanding of the design of such systems.

As organizations accumulate vast amounts of data for analysis, a significant challenge remains in fully understanding these datasets to extract accurate information and generate real-world impact. Particularly, the high dimensionality of datasets and the lack of sufficient documentation, specifically the provision of metadata, often limit the potential to exploit the full value of data via analytical methods. To address these issues, this study proposes a hybrid approach to metadata generation, that leverages both the in-depth knowledge of domain experts and the scalability of automated processes. The approach centers on two key design principles—semanticization and contextualization—to facilitate the understanding of high-dimensional datasets. A real-world case study conducted at a leading pharmaceutical company validates the effectiveness of this approach, demonstrating improved collaboration and knowledge sharing among users. By addressing the challenges in metadata generation, this research contributes significantly toward empowering organizations to make more effective, data-driven decisions.