Users trust algorithms more when they can predict the algorithms’ behavior. Simple algorithms trivially yield predictively accurate mental models, but modern AI algorithms have often been assumed too complex for people to build predictive mental models, especially in the social media domain. In this paper, we describe conditions under which even complex algorithms can yield predictive mental models, opening up opportunities for a broader set of human-centered algorithms. We theorize that users will form an accurate predictive mental model of an algorithm’s behavior if and only if the algorithm simultaneously satisfies three criteria: (1) cognitive availability of the underlying concepts being modeled, (2) concept compactness (does it form a single cognitive construct?), and (3) high alignment between the person’s and algorithm’s execution of the concept. We evaluate this theory through a pre-registered experiment ( N = 1250) where users predict behavior of 25 social media feed ranking algorithms that vary on these criteria. We find that even complex (e.g., LLM-based) algorithms enjoy accurate prediction rates when they meet all criteria, and even simple (e.g., basic term count) algorithms fail to be predictable when a single criterion fails. We also find that these criteria determine outcomes beyond prediction accuracy, such as which mental models users deploy to make their predictions.

Large-scale generative models have enabled the development of AI-powered code completion tools to assist programmers in writing code. Like all AI-powered tools, these code completion tools are not always accurate and can introduce bugs or even security vulnerabilities into code if not properly detected and corrected by a human programmer. One technique that has been proposed and implemented to help programmers locate potential errors is to highlight uncertain tokens. However, little is known about the effectiveness of this technique. Through a mixed-methods study with 30 programmers, we compare three conditions: providing the AI system's code completion alone, highlighting tokens with the lowest likelihood of being generated by the underlying generative model, and highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited by a programmer. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits, and is subjectively preferred by study participants. In contrast, highlighting tokens according to their probability of being generated does not provide any benefit over the baseline with no highlighting. We further explore the design space of how to convey uncertainty in AI-powered code completion tools and find that programmers prefer highlights that are granular, informative, interpretable, and not overwhelming. This work contributes to building an understanding of what uncertainty means for generative models and how to convey it effectively.

The standard way to teach models is by feeding them lots of data. However, this approach often teaches models incorrect ideas because they pick up on misleading signals in the data. To prevent such misconceptions, we must necessarily provide additional information beyond the training data. Prior methods incorporate additional instance-level supervision, such as labels for misleading features or additional labels for debiased data. However, such strategies require a large amount of labeler effort. We hypothesize that people are good at providing textual feedback at the concept level, a capability that existing teaching frameworks do not leverage. We propose Clarify, a novel interface and method for interactively correcting model misconceptions. Through Clarify, users need only provide a short text description of a model’s consistent failure patterns. Then, in an entirely automated way, we use such descriptions to improve the training process. Clarify is the first end-to-end system for user model correction. Our user studies show that non-expert users can successfully describe model misconceptions via Clarify, leading to increased worst-case performance in two datasets. We additionally conduct a case study on a large-scale image dataset, ImageNet, using Clarify to find and rectify 31 novel hard subpopulations.

Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.