Despite recognizing that Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate inaccurate or unacceptable responses, universities are increasingly making such models available to their students.Existing university policies defer the responsibility of checking for correctness and appropriateness of LLM responses to students and assume that they will have the required knowledge and skills to do so on their own.In this work, we conducted a series of user studies with students (N=47) from a large North American public research university to understand if and how they critically engage with LLMs.Our participants evaluated an LLM provided by the university in a quasi-experimental setup; first by themselves, and then with a scaffolded design probe that guided them through an end-user auditing exercise.Qualitative analysis of participant think-aloud and LLM interaction data showed that students without basic AI literacy skills struggle to conceptualize and evaluate LLM biases on their own.However, they transition to focused thinking and purposeful interactions when provided with structured guidance.We highlight areas where current university policies may fall short and offer policy and design recommendations to better support students.

Decision Support Systems (DSS) based on Machine Learning (ML) often aim to assist lay decision-makers, who are not math-savvy, in making high-stakes decisions. However, existing ML-based DSS are not always transparent about the probabilistic nature of ML predictions and how uncertain each prediction is. This lack of transparency could give lay decision-makers a false sense of reliability. Growing calls for AI transparency have led to increasing efforts to quantify and communicate model uncertainty. However, there are still gaps in knowledge regarding how and why the decision-makers utilize ML uncertainty information in their decision process. Here, we conducted a qualitative, think-aloud user study with 17 lay decision-makers who interacted with three different DSS: 1) interactive visualization, 2) DSS based on an ML model that provides predictions without uncertainty information, and 3) the same DSS with uncertainty information. Our qualitative analysis found that communicating uncertainty about ML predictions forced participants to slow down and think analytically about their decisions. This in turn made participants more vigilant, resulting in reduction in over-reliance on ML-based DSS. Our work contributes empirical knowledge on how lay decision-makers perceive, interpret, and make use of uncertainty information when interacting with DSS. Such foundational knowledge informs the design of future ML-based DSS that embrace transparent uncertainty communication.

Computational models that formalize complex human behaviors enable study and understanding of such behaviors. However, collecting behavior data required to estimate the parameters of such models is often tedious and resource intensive. Thus, estimating dataset size as part of data collection planning (also known as Sample Size Determination) is important to reduce the time and effort of behavior data collection while maintaining an accurate estimate of model parameters. In this article, we present a sample size determination method based on Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) for a specific Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) model of human behavior, in two cases: (1)pre-hocexperiment design—conducted in the planning stage before any data is collected, to guide the estimation of how many samples to collect; and (2)post-hocdataset analysis—performed after data is collected, to decide if the existing dataset has sufficient samples and whether more data is needed. We validate our approach in experiments with a realistic model of behaviors of people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and illustrate how to pick a reasonable sample size target. Our work enables model designers to perform a deeper, principled investigation of the effects of dataset size on IRL model parameters.