Theoretical, Measured and Subjective Responsibility in Aided Decision Making

When humans interact with intelligent systems, their causal responsibility for outcomes becomes equivocal. We analyze the descriptive abilities of a newly developed responsibility quantification model (ResQu) to predict actual human responsibility and perceptions of responsibility in the interaction with intelligent systems. In two laboratory experiments, participants performed a classification task. They were aided by classification systems with different capabilities. We compared the predicted theoretical responsibility values to the actual measured responsibility participants took on and to their subjective rankings of responsibility. The model predictions were strongly correlated with both measured and subjective responsibility. A bias existed only when participants with poor classification capabilities relied less-than-optimally on a system that had superior classification capabilities and assumed higher-than-optimal responsibility. The study implies that when humans interact with advanced intelligent systems, with capabilities that greatly exceed their own, their comparative causal responsibility will be small, even if formally the human is assigned major roles. Simply putting a human into the loop does not assure that the human will meaningfully contribute to the outcomes. The results demonstrate the descriptive value of the ResQu model to predict behavior and perceptions of responsibility by considering the characteristics of the human, the intelligent system, the environment and some systematic behavioral biases. The ResQu model is a new quantitative method that can be used in system design and can guide policy and legal decisions regarding human responsibility in events involving intelligent systems

How and Why Decision Models Influence Marketing Resource Allocations

We study how and why model-based Decision Support Systems (DSSs) influence managerial decision making, in the context of marketing budgeting and resource allocation. We consider several questions: (1) What does it mean for a DSS to be "good?"; (2) What is the relationship between an anchor or reference condition, DSS-supported recommendation and decision quality? (3) How does a DSS influence the decision process, and how does the process influence outcomes? (4) Is the effect of the DSS on the decision process and outcome robust, or context specific? We test hypotheses about the effects of DSSs in a controlled experiment with two award winning DSSs and find that, (1) DSSs improve users' objective decision outcomes (an index of likely realized revenue or profit); (2) DSS users often do not report enhanced subjective perceptions of outcomes; (3) DSSs, that provide feedback in the form of specific recommendations and their associated projected benefits had a stronger effect both on the decision making process and on the outcomes.Our results suggest that although managers actually achieve improved outcomes from DSS use, they may not perceive that the DSS has improved the outcomes. Therefore, there may be limited interest in managerial uses of DSSs, unless they are designed to: (1) encourage discussion (e.g., by providing explanations and support for the recommendations), (2) provide feedback to users on likely marketplace results, and (3) help reduce the perceived complexity of the problem so that managers will consider more alternatives and invest more cognitive effort in searching for improved outcomes.marketing models;resource allocation;DSS;decision process;decision quality

Why Are People's Decisions Sometimes Worse with Computer Support?

In many applications of computerised decision support, a recognised source of undesired outcomes is operators' apparent over-reliance on automation. For instance, an operator may fail to react to a potentially dangerous situation because a computer fails to generate an alarm. However, the very use of terms like "over-reliance" betrays possible misunderstandings of these phenomena and their causes, which may lead to ineffective corrective action (e.g. training or procedures that do not counteract all the causes of the apparently "over-reliant" behaviour). We review relevant literature in the area of "automation bias" and describe the diverse mechanisms that may be involved in human errors when using computer support. We discuss these mechanisms, with reference to errors of omission when using "alerting systems", with the help of examples of novel counterintuitive findings we obtained from a case study in a health care application, as well as other examples from the literature

A cross impact methodology for the assessment of US telecommunications system with application to fiber optics development: Executive summary

A cross impact model of the U.S. telecommunications system was developed. For this model, it was necessary to prepare forecasts of the major segments of the telecommunications system, such as satellites, telephone, TV, CATV, radio broadcasting, etc. In addition, forecasts were prepared of the traffic generated by a variety of new or expanded services, such as electronic check clearing and point of sale electronic funds transfer. Finally, the interactions among the forecasts were estimated (the cross impacts). Both the forecasts and the cross impacts were used as inputs to the cross impact model, which could then be used to stimulate the future growth of the entire U.S. telecommunications system. By varying the inputs, technology changes or policy decisions with regard to any segment of the system could be evaluated in the context of the remainder of the system. To illustrate the operation of the model, a specific study was made of the deployment of fiber optics, throughout the telecommunications system

The Responsibility Quantification (ResQu) Model of Human Interaction with Automation

Intelligent systems and advanced automation are involved in information collection and evaluation, in decision-making and in the implementation of chosen actions. In such systems, human responsibility becomes equivocal. Understanding human casual responsibility is particularly important when intelligent autonomous systems can harm people, as with autonomous vehicles or, most notably, with autonomous weapon systems (AWS). Using Information Theory, we develop a responsibility quantification (ResQu) model of human involvement in intelligent automated systems and demonstrate its applications on decisions regarding AWS. The analysis reveals that human comparative responsibility to outcomes is often low, even when major functions are allocated to the human. Thus, broadly stated policies of keeping humans in the loop and having meaningful human control are misleading and cannot truly direct decisions on how to involve humans in intelligent systems and advanced automation. The current model is an initial step in the complex goal to create a comprehensive responsibility model, that will enable quantification of human causal responsibility. It assumes stationarity, full knowledge regarding the characteristic of the human and automation and ignores temporal aspects. Despite these limitations, it can aid in the analysis of systems designs alternatives and policy decisions regarding human responsibility in intelligent systems and advanced automation

Pilot interaction with automated airborne decision making systems

Two project areas were pursued: the intelligent cockpit and human problem solving. The first area involves an investigation of the use of advanced software engineering methods to aid aircraft crews in procedure selection and execution. The second area is focused on human problem solving in dynamic environments, particulary in terms of identification of rule-based models land alternative approaches to training and aiding. Progress in each area is discussed

An overview of decision table literature 1982-1995.

This report gives an overview of the literature on decision tables over the past 15 years. As much as possible, for each reference, an author supplied abstract, a number of keywords and a classification are provided. In some cases own comments are added. The purpose of these comments is to show where, how and why decision tables are used. The literature is classified according to application area, theoretical versus practical character, year of publication, country or origin (not necessarily country of publication) and the language of the document. After a description of the scope of the interview, classification results and the classification by topic are presented. The main body of the paper is the ordered list of publications with abstract, classification and comments.