LLMs are increasingly supporting decision-making across high-stakes domains, requiring critical reflection on the socio-technical factors that shape how humans and LLMs are assigned roles and interact during human-in-the-loop decision-making. This paper introduces the concept of human-LLM archetypes – defined as recurring socio-technical interaction patterns that structure the roles of humans and LLMs in collaborative decision-making. We describe 17 human-LLM archetypes derived from a scoping literature review and thematic analysis of 113 LLM-supported decision-making papers. Then, we evaluate these diverse archetypes across real-world clinical diagnostic cases to examine the potential effects of adopting distinct human-LLM archetypes on LLM outputs and decision outcomes. Finally, we present relevant tradeoffs and design choices across human-LLM archetypes, including decision control, social hierarchies, cognitive forcing strategies, and information requirements. Through our analysis, we show that selection of human-LLM interaction archetype can influence LLM outputs and decisions, bringing important risks and considerations for the designers of human-AI decision-making systems.

Hybrid video calls include attendees in a conference room with loudspeakers and remote attendees using headsets, each with different options for rendering sound spatially. Two studies explored the listener experience with spatial audio in video calls. One study examined the in-room experience using loudspeakers, comparing among spatialization algorithms spreading voices out horizontally. A second study compared varying degrees of horizontal separation of binaurally rendered voices for a remote participant using a headset. In-room participants preferred the widest spatialization over monophonic, stereo, and stereo-binary audio in metrics related to intelligibility and helpfulness. Remote participants preferred different widths of the audio stage depending on the number of voices. In both studies, rendering sound spatially increased performance in speech stream identification. Results indicate spatial audio benefits for in-room and remote attendees in video calls, although the in-room attendees accepted a wider audio stage than remote users.

Human-AI collaboration for decision-making strives to achieve team performance that exceeds the performance of humans or AI alone. However, many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user’s domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more. This article reports on a study that examines users’ interactions with three simulated algorithmic models, all with equivalent accuracy rates but each tuned differently in terms of true positive and true negative rates. Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled. Users completed 140 trials across multiple stages, first without an AI and then with recommendations from an AI-Assistant. Although all users had prior experience with the task, their levels of proficiency varied widely. Our results demonstrated that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid in users’ decision making, several underlying factors, including user base expertise and complementary human-AI tuning, significantly impact the overall team performance. First, users’ base performance matters, particularly in comparison to the performance level of the AI. Novice users improved, but not to the accuracy level of the AI. Highly proficient users were generally able to discern when they should follow the AI recommendation and typically maintained or improved their performance. Mid-performers, who had a similar level of accuracy to the AI, were most variable in terms of whether the AI recommendations helped or hurt their performance. Second, tuning an AI algorithm to complement users’ strengths and weaknesses also significantly impacted users’ performance. For example, users in our study were better at detecting flowing blood vessels, so when the AI was tuned to reduce false negatives (at the expense of increasing false positives), users were able to reject those recommendations more easily and improve in accuracy. Finally, users’ perception of the AI’s performance relative to their own performance had an impact on whether users’ accuracy improved when given recommendations from the AI. Overall, this work reveals important insights on the complex interplay of factors influencing Human-AI collaboration and provides recommendations on how to design and tune AI algorithms to complement users in decision-making tasks.