Abstract
As the ability to collect and store data grows, so does the need to efficiently analyze that data. As human-machine teams that use machine learning (ML) algorithms as a way to inform human decision-making grow in popularity it becomes increasingly critical to understand the optimal methods of implementing algorithm assisted search. In order to better understand how algorithm confidence values associated with object identification can influence participant accuracy and response times during a visual search task, we compared models that provided appropriate confidence, random confidence, and no confidence, as well as a model biased toward over confidence and a model biased toward under confidence. Results indicate that randomized confidence is likely harmful to performance while non-random confidence values are likely better than no confidence value for maintaining accuracy over time. Providing participants with appropriate confidence values did not seem to benefit performance any more than providing participants with under or over confident models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Biggs, A.T., Cain, M.S., Clark, K., Darling, E.F., Mitroff, S.R.: Assessing visual search performance differences between Transportation Security Administration Officers and nonprofessional visual searchers. Vis. Cognit. 21(3), 330–352 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.790329
Cireşan, D., Meier, U., Masci, J., Schmidhuber, J.: A committee of neural networks for traffic sign classification. In: The 2011 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1918–1921. IEEE, July 2011
Cramer, H., et al.: The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender. User Mod. User-Adapt. Interact. 18(5), 455–496 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-008-9051-3
Druzhkov, P.N., Kustikova, V.D.: A survey of deep learning methods and software tools for image classification and object detection. Pattern Recognit. Image Anal. 26(1), 9–15 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1054661816010065
Du, N., Huang, K.Y., Yang, X.J.: Not all information is equal: effects of disclosing different types of likelihood information on trust, compliance and reliance, and task performance in human-automation teaming. Hum. Factors 62(6), 987–1001 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819862916
Fuchs, F., Song, Y., Kaufmann, E., Scaramuzza, D., Duerr, P.: Super-human performance in gran turismo sport using deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07971 (2020)
Gastelum, Z.N., et al.: Evaluating the cognitive impacts of errors from analytical tools in the international nuclear safeguards domain. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management Annual Meeting, July 2020
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., Wyatt, J.C.: Automation bias: empirical results assessing influencing factors. Int. J. Med. Inf. 83(5), 368–375 (2014)
Goh, Y.C., Cai, X.Q., Theseira, W., Ko, G., Khor, K.A.: Evaluating human versus machine learning performance in classifying research abstracts. Scientometrics 125(2), 1197–1212 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03614-2
Khasawneh, M.T., Bowling, S.R., Jiang, X., Gramopadhye, A.K., Melloy, B.J.: A model for predicting human trust in automated systems. Origins, 5 (2003)
Keim, D.A., Mansmann, F., Schneidewind, J., Thomas, J., Ziegler, H.: Visual analytics: scope and challenges. In: Simoff, S.J., Böhlen, M.H., Mazeika, A. (eds.) Visual Data Mining. LNCS, vol. 4404, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71080-6_6
Kneusel, R.T., Mozer, M.C.: Improving human-machine cooperative visual search with soft highlighting. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. (TAP) 15(1), 1–21 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3129669
Körber, M., Baseler, E., Bengler, K.: Introduction matters: manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Appl. Ergon. 66, 18–31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.006
Lyons, J.B., Wynne, K.T., Mahoney, S., Roebke, M.A.: Trust and human-machine teaming: a qualitative study. In: Artificial Intelligence for the Internet of Everything, pp. 101–116. Academic Press (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-817636-8.00006-5
Minitab 19 Statistical Software: [Computer software]. State College, PA: Minitab, Inc. (2020). www.minitab.com
Merritt, S.M., Ilgen, D.R.: Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Hum. Factors 50(2), 194–210 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288574
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., Ipeirotis, P.G.: Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5(5), 411–419 (2010). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1626226
Rice, S.: Examining single-and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. J. Gen. Psychol. 136(3), 303–322 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.136.3.303-322
Toreini, E., Aitken, M., Coopamootoo, K., Elliott, K., Zelaya, C.G., van Moorsel, A.: The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 272–283, January 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372834
Wolfe, J.: When do I quit? The search termination problem in visual search. In: Dodd, M., Flowers, J. (eds.) The Influence of Attention, Learning, and Motivation on Visual Search. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, pp. 183–208. Springer, New York (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4794-8_8
Weyand, T., Kostrikov, I., Philbin, J.: PlaNet - photo geolocation with convolutional neural networks. In: Leibe, B., Matas, J., Sebe, N., Welling, M. (eds.) ECCV 2016. LNCS, vol. 9912, pp. 37–55. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46484-8_3
Yin, M., Wortman Vaughan, J., Wallach, H.: Understanding the effect of accuracy on trust in machine learning models. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12, May 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300509
Acknowledgements
Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. SAND2021-2142 C. This work was funded by Sandia National Laboratories’ Laboratory-Directed Research and Development program, through the Computational and Information Sciences investment area.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jones, A.P. et al. (2021). Evaluating the Impact of Algorithm Confidence Ratings on Human Decision Making in Visual Search. In: Yamamoto, S., Mori, H. (eds) Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information Presentation and Visualization. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12765. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78321-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78321-1_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78320-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78321-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)