Human-AI Decision Making

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

16 papers in the last four weeks, up 300% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 104

Jul 15, 2026cs.AI

Align AI to Dynamic Human-AI Workflows

Current alignment approaches typically focus on emulating human behavior using static representations of human preferences, failing to capture the dynamic, context-dependent nature of real-world human-AI interactions. In this paper, we argue for a shift from static and emulative to interactive and complementary alignment, where preferences emerge through interaction and alignment is defined not by satisfying preferences alone. We first formalize this gap by contrasting existing alignment with a trajectory-level view in which human and model behavior co-evolve over time. Because these interaction dynamics have not been adequately captured within existing ML formulations, we ground this perspective in insights from an interdisciplinary workshop. We draw on lessons from social-science accounts of human-human collaboration and then argue that human-AI systems amplify these dynamics, introducing new asymmetries that make reasoning about uncertainty harder and introduce new coordination challenges. Based on these lessons and new challenges, we conclude by outlining a research agenda for developing AI systems that align with humans in interaction, requiring an interdisciplinary synthesis of machine learning and the social and decision sciences.

Valerie Chen, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Anita Williams Woolley +4

1Carnegie Mellon University · University of California, Irvine

AI Alignment Human-AI Interaction Preference Alignment Human-AI Decision Making Human-AI Collaboration

Jul 15, 2026cs.SI

The Dynamic Verifiable Multi-Agent Human Agentic Loyalty Loop (DVM-HALL) Model and the Net Human-Agent Score (NHAS) in Autonomous Commerce

The rapid proliferation of Agentic Artificial Intelligence fundamentally disrupts traditional customer loyalty paradigms. As AI evolves from passive recommendation algorithms to autonomous, goal-directed agents capable of executing purchasing decisions, the conventional understanding of consumer-brand relationships requires a structural reevaluation. By synthesizing extant literature across human-machine teaming, consumer decision-making, and algorithmic trust dynamics, we demonstrate that traditional loyalty models fail to account for algorithmic bounded rationality and constructed autonomy. To address this, we introduce the Dynamic Verifiable Multi-Agent Human Agentic Loyalty Loop (DVM-HALL) model. We formalize brand choice via a softmax probability formulation where human emotional equity, agentic machine-experience utility, calibrated trust, delegated authority, and verifiable execution jointly determine selection. The model features recursive updating mechanisms to dynamically calibrate trust and delegation after each interaction. Crucially, the framework integrates a verifiable execution layer for Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and tokenized loyalty settings, incorporating execution risks -- such as gas costs, slippage, MEV exposure, and smart-contract vulnerabilities -- as core predictors of agentic brand preference. Furthermore, we introduce the Net Human-Agent Score (NHAS), an auditable, risk-weighted metric designed to measure human-agent alignment using human feedback, execution logs, benchmark comparisons, and verifiable receipts. Finally, we propose a comprehensive three-stage empirical validation plan spanning controlled shopping experiments, multi-agent market simulations, and DeFi testbeds. This framework provides the foundational theory required for brands to navigate the impending transition toward machine customers.

Sai Srikanth Madugula, Peplluis Esteva de la Rosa, Daya Shankar

School of Technology, Woxsen University, Hyderabad, Telangana 502345, India · Universitat de Girona, 17004 Girona, Spain · School of Sciences, Woxsen University, Hyderabad, Telangana 502345, India

Human-AI Agreement E-Commerce Trust in AI Human-AI Decision Making

Jul 15, 2026cs.AI

AI advice suppresses people's willingness to say "I don't know", even when the advice is wrong and accuracy is incentivized

Knowing when to say "I don't know" is fundamental to human judgment, yet AI assistants offer a fluent answer to almost any question. In five experiments (N = 3,132; four preregistered, one direct replication), participants answered difficult questions and could always decline to respond. We engineered the questions so that AI advice was wrong, separating AI use from its accuracy. Merely having access to AI nearly eliminated participants' willingness to suspend judgment, and this held whether the advice was actively requested or simply displayed. Consequently, participants answered more questions but were correct about a third as often as when AI was unavailable-yet their confidence nearly doubled. Incentivizing accuracy and penalizing inaccuracy led participants to seek and follow AI advice less, answer more accurately, and suspend judgment more often, though still far less than when AI was unavailable. As AI suggestions grow ubiquitous and unsolicited, they may not simply affect answer accuracy; they may even alter the metacognitive threshold at which people decide whether they know enough to answer.

Chiara Marcoccia, Walter Quattrociocchi, Valerio Capraro

Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France · University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy · University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

AI-Assisted Decision Making Human-AI Decision Making

Jul 14, 2026cs.HC

Practical Judgment, Virtue, and Intuition in the Use of Opaque AI-Enabled Systems

AI-enabled systems are seeing increasing deployment across numerous domains, with many being "black boxes" with respect to core functions and capabilities. I.e., many systems take inputs and give outputs, but without users having any ability to see how the former lead to the latter. AI-enabled systems are also being used to augment autonomy in systems, and autonomy coupled with opacity raises numerous concerns surrounding, e.g., the reliability of systems, their regularity in functioning, human ability to control them, or whether deploying opaque and potentially autonomous systems is in compliance with ethical and legal norms. In this article, we argue that many of these worries can be mitigated by leveraging practical judgment, virtue, and intuition in the deployment and use of opaque AI-enabled systems. We show that focusing on these distinctly human capabilities provides a means for bridging between the practical challenges created by opacity and the ethical, legal, and social norms underpinning particular domains. We argue that a core element in doing this is a recognition that many positive human traits are not quantifiable and we therefore must develop training regimen and guidelines on AI deployment anchored in humanistic but non-quantifiable values. Throughout the article, we focus on the military domain as an exemplar of the importance of practical judgment, virtue, and intuition as drivers for ethical and effective human decision-making surrounding AI deployments, but the underlying arguments apply to all domains where opaque and potentially autonomous systems are being deployed (subject to domain-specific alterations).

Nathan G. Wood, Andrew P. Rebera

AI Governance Human-AI Decision Making Human Oversight of AI

Jul 11, 2026cs.CL

Neutralizing Structural Inequality in the Nigerian FinTech Sector

Algorithmic decision systems in financial services often rely on data proxies that inadvertently encode structural inequalities. This paper introduces a hierarchical human-AI triage model for Point of Sale fraud detection in the Nigerian FinTech sector. Adopting a We Are All Equal worldview, we address the challenge of discrimination laundering, wherein the system misinterprets infrastructure related aleatoric noise such as rural network timeouts as fraudulent intent. We implement a three-tier routing policy utilizing a calibrated ensemble model as a primary filter. The policy routes transactions characterized by epistemic uncertainty such as cold start new accounts to specialist analysts while reserving high stakes cases for a senior supervisor. To manage finite human capacity, we utilize a dynamic shadow price to ration human attention and implement a random audit mechanism to prevent human skill atrophy. Our experimental results demonstrate a statistically significant 1.88% complementarity gap and a 24.79% percentage point gain in fraud recall over an autonomous baseline. Crucially, the model reduces the regional performance gap from 19.43 to 2.88 percentage points, neutralizing structural bias. Hierarchical collaboration provides a robust mechanism for substantive equality of opportunity, ensuring that rural accounts are not excluded from the digital economy due to environmental brute luck.

Muhammad Abdullahi Said

Algorithmic Fairness Financial Fraud Detection Human-in-the-Loop AI Group Fairness Human-AI Decision Making Human Oversight of AI

Jul 9, 2026cs.AI

Psychological Competence as a Missing Dimension in AI Evaluation

Current AI evaluation frameworks focus primarily on technical performance, including accuracy, robustness, reasoning ability, and policy compliance. These measures remain essential, but they are not sufficient for systems that interact directly with users through natural language. Human-facing AI systems are increasingly used as advisors, coaches, tutors, and companions. In these roles, their responses can shape how users reason, interpret emotions, form beliefs, calibrate trust, and make decisions. The relevant unit of evaluation is therefore not only the model, but the human-AI interaction. This paper introduces psychological competence as a missing dimension in AI evaluation. We define psychological competence as the capacity of a human-facing AI system to support user cognition, emotional interpretation, and behavioral decision-making in ways that are appropriate to the user, context, and purpose of the interaction. This includes interaction properties such as framing, tone, perceived authority, responsiveness, uncertainty handling, and conversational guidance. Existing evaluation approaches capture parts of this problem but rarely assess these psychological effects directly. Drawing on behavioral science and human-AI interaction research, we outline a conceptual framework for psychological competence and its core domains. Rather than proposing a specific benchmark, we define the construct, clarify its boundaries, and describe how it may be assessed through scenario-based probes, structured human evaluation, and model-assisted evaluation methods. We argue that psychological competence should become a core consideration for model providers, deploying organizations, researchers, and regulators concerned with the real-world effects of human-facing AI systems.

Marcos Economides, Paul M. Sacher, Samuel Salzer +3

Behavioral AI Institute · Imperial College London

Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI Human-AI Decision Making

Jul 7, 2026cs.LG

Robust Human-AI Complementarity under Uncertainty

Machine learning models are often intended to augment rather than replace human decision makers, by providing information that is complementary to human judgement. Yet, in practice, human decision makers routinely fail to realize such complementary gains, even when models provide useful signal. In this work, we study how asymmetric information about the quality of information available to a human decision maker vs. an AI impacts the ability of a decision maker to extract complementary value from AI predictions. We show that a key factor is the error correlation structure between human and AI predictions. In particular, when the AI's prediction errors are \textit{negatively correlated} with those of the human, the decision maker can construct robust strategies which guarantee improvements in expected utility. We empirically investigate whether these conditions for complementarity arise in practice, using real-world forecasting benchmarks.

Yewon Byun, Bryan Wilder

Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University.

Human-AI Decision Making Decision-Making under Uncertainty

Jul 7, 2026cs.LG

Learning When to Automate: Queue Control in Human-AI Service Systems

We study a human-AI service system in which tasks arrive sequentially and are processed through a two-stage architecture: an automated chatbot followed, when necessary, by a human agent. We consider

T

sequentially arriving tasks, each belonging to one of

K

heterogeneous types. For each task the decision maker chooses how many resources to allocate to the chatbot, whose type-dependent success probabilities are initially unknown. Tasks not resolved by the chatbot enter type-dependent human-service queues, where they are processed by a human agent with unknown service rates. This model captures a central tradeoff in hybrid service systems: relying more on automation reduces human congestion but increases chatbot costs, while insufficient automation may overload the human agent. We propose the UCB-DPP policy, which combines Upper Confidence Bounds with Drift-Plus-Penalty control to learn the unknown parameters of the system while making queue-aware decisions. We prove that UCB-DPP achieves regret

\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(K\sqrt{T})

and guarantees mean-rate stability of the human-service queues. Simulations on synthetic instances show that the proposed policy outperforms natural baselines.

Giovanni Montanari, Marco Scarsini, Vianney Perchet

FairPlay Joint Team, Inria, France · CREST, ENSAE, Institut Polytechnique de Paris · Department of Economics and Financial Markets, Luiss University +1

Human-AI Decision Making Online Learning

Jul 6, 2026cs.CY

Beyond Accuracy: How Humans Evaluate Legally Correct but Socially Controversial Legal Advice from Machines

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainland China examining how people evaluate identical legal advice when it is attributed either to an AI system or to a human lawyer, and when it is accompanied by reasoning or not. Contrary to expectations of algorithm aversion, attribution to an AI system has no net effect on perceived reasonableness. However, mediation analyses reveal opposing psychological pathways underlying this null result. AI-attributed advice is perceived as more objective, which increases perceived reasonableness, but also as less comprehensive and less attentive to special circumstances, which decreases perceived reasonableness. By contrast, providing legal reasoning substantially increases perceived reasonableness regardless of source, largely by enhancing perceptions of objectivity. Qualitative responses corroborate this tension between objectivity and contextual sensitivity in evaluations of legal advice. Together, these findings suggest that public responses to AI legal advisors are shaped not by rigid attitudes toward automation, but by the balancing of competing normative expectations. The results have implications for theories of algorithm aversion and the design of AI recommendation systems in normatively salient domains.

Benjamin Minhao Chen, Zhiyu Li

a Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong · b Associate Professor in Law and Policy, Durham Law School, Durham University

AI-Assisted Decision Making Legal QA Human-AI Decision Making

Jul 3, 2026cs.AI

Human-Centric Reflective Architecture for Human-AI Collaborative Decision-Making

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse areas of human activity-ranging from everyday tasks to safety-critical applications-aims to enhance decision-making effectiveness with minimal human feedback. Concurrently, it seeks to align decisions with human expectations, preferences, and needs while mitigating risks associated with AI non-determinism. However, humans frequently over- or under-rely on AI recommendations, and current AI systems remain poorly calibrated to human expectations. To address these challenges, we introduce a human-AI collaborative decision-making framework designed to augment human capabilities and align AI agents with human preferences and expectations. Specifically, this paper (a) formulates the collaborative decision-making task as a stochastic game between an AI agent and a human player, and (b) proposes the Human-Centric Reflective Architecture (HCRA), which integrates human-calibrated models with reinforcement learning agents that leverage linguistic feedback in an iterative, reflective process. Evaluation results demonstrate that HCRA enhances decision-making effectiveness and delivers high-quality recommendations.

Andreas Kouridakis, Dimitrios Patiniotis Spyropoulos, George Vouros

University of Piraeus Piraeus, Greece

Human Preference Modeling Human-in-the-Loop AI Human-AI Decision Making Human-AI Collaboration RL from Human Feedback

Jul 1, 2026cs.AI

Janus: a Playground for User-Involved Agentic Permission Management

AI agents that autonomously execute tool calls on a user's behalf raise pressing questions about permission management: what role could users play, and what role should they play? Despite many proposed approaches, the user's role in agentic permission management remains under explored. We introduce Janus, a playground system for implementing and evaluating user-involved agentic permission management designs. Janus consists of two components: Janus-Core, a modular agentic system supporting a diverse spectrum of permission management designs, and Janus-Harness, an automated evaluation framework. Grounded in a conceptual model that identifies key design axes for user involvement, we implement six permission assistants spanning the design space and evaluate them across three scenarios and three synthetic responders. We demonstrate that user input is critical and can significantly strengthen privacy and security, that AI augmentation of user decisions can help reduce cognitive load, and that realistic user behavior including permission fatigue must be accounted for in system design. No single design performs optimally across all contexts, motivating a more principled and context-sensitive approach to deploying permission assistants in agentic systems. Janus is publicly available to support future investigation into this dimension of agentic system design.

Natalie Grace Brigham, Eugene Bagdasarian, Tadayoshi Kohno +1

University of Washington · University of Massachusetts Amherst · Georgetown University

AI Agent Security Human-AI Decision Making Tool Access Control for LLM Agents

Jun 30, 2026cs.CL

Can LLMs Imagine Moral Alternatives Beyond Binary Dilemmas?

As LLMs increasingly serve as moral advisors and agents, they must address conflicts between competing values. Yet prior work on moral dilemmas overlooks a central aspect of human moral cognition: imagining alternatives beyond the given options. We introduce MoralAltDataset, comprising 307 Advisor and AI-facing Agent dilemmas augmented with compromise and reframed alternatives. We compare human and LLM judgments in binary and four-option settings. Across human participants and 15 LLMs, aggregate moral choice distributions differ substantially between the two settings, with compromise often preferred over either original binary option. Results show value shifts and stronger human-LLM agreement on alternatives. Source-stratified results reveal a descriptive gap: human alternative-selection rates are similar across authoring sources, whereas LLMs select GPT-5-authored alternatives substantially more often. We then compare human-authored alternatives with outputs from three representative LLMs through pairwise preference and expert-based evaluations. Alternatives from these LLMs are generally preferred and better satisfy fine-grained structural and ethical criteria, while revealing a trade-off between structural quality and practical feasibility. Our dataset is available here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/jongchanch/MoralAltDataset, and our project page is here: https://jongchanchoi.com/moral-imagination

Jongchan Choi, Nari Yang, Sung Soo Park +4

1Korea University · 2XenoStep AI · 3Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

LLM Evaluation Moral Reasoning in Language Models Human-AI Decision Making Moral Reasoning

Jun 16, 2026cs.CY

Agentic AI Enhances Physician Trust in Clinical Decision Making

Medical AI has shifted from reasoning to agentic AI, a new paradigm that autonomously invokes external tools during reasoning, rendering intermediate reasoning steps and tool outputs transparent to users. Although proven to outperform previous models, physician trust in agentic AI remains largely unexplored. To address this, three physicians evaluated 315 multimodal clinical cases quantifying both process-oriented cognitive trust and outcome-oriented behavioral reliance. Comparing agentic AI against non-agentic baselines, physicians exhibited significantly higher cognitive and behavioral trust for the agentic model (P < 0.001). Specifically, on treatment planning tasks, physicians trusted the agentic reasoning most, preferring it in 89.57% of cases. Furthermore, process-oriented cognitive trust is significantly associated with outcome-oriented behavioral reliance (P < 0.001). However, measurable over-reliance on incorrect agentic outputs still exists, highlighting the inherent limitations of decision-logic transparency alone and underscoring the continuous need for rigorous clinician oversight.

Zhiling Yan, Zhe Fang, David J King +10

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA · Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA · Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA +4

Clinical Decision-Making Trust in AI Human-AI Decision Making Human Oversight of AI Agentic AI

Jun 14, 2026cs.HC

SCAN: A Decision-Making Framework for Effective Task Allocation with Generative AI

We introduce SCAN -- a human-centric decision-making framework to facilitate learners for effective task allocation with Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) based on Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and Metacognition. In SCAN, we systematize and formalize AI-human interaction by introducing a task-identification approach with four "sub-zones": Substitute, Complement, Aid, and Non-negotiable. After describing the four sub-zones, we demonstrate how SCAN framework can be applied for knowledge workers in the workplace and students in education to metacognitively "scan" their use of Generative AI. We then discuss how such framework can be related to cognitive load theory, cognitive offloading, sycophancy, three decision-making modes in human-AI interactions (automation, augmentation, and collaboration), future of work such as upskilling and deskilling, and how it accounts for both human-human and human-AI learning. We propose that SCAN offers a great starting point before discussing whether GenAI complements or replaces our abilities when completing a task, with a general objective of sustaining lifelong learning, and a specific goal of reaching hybrid intelligence.

Fendi Tsim, Alina Gutoreva

1Independent Researcher, London, United Kingdom · School of IT and Engineering, Kazakh-British Technical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Generative AI in Education Human-Centered AI Human-AI Decision Making Human-AI Collaboration

Jun 11, 2026cs.HC

The Silent Cost of Artificial Intelligence Assistance: A Theory of Autonomy Surrender, the Recovery Mechanism, and the Restoration of Human Agency

The integration of artificial intelligence into human decision-making environments has introduced a previously undertheorized cost: the gradual surrender of human autonomy in exchange for access to information and computational assistance. Building on the Human Identity and Autonomy Gap (HIAG) framework, this paper advances a theoretical model of autonomy surrender as a measurable, cumulative process driven by cognitive bandwidth depletion. The model proposes three interacting mechanisms: the silent cost of AI assistance, in which autonomy is transferred incrementally and without awareness; the surrender threshold, beyond which reclaiming autonomous function becomes cognitively and psychologically difficult; and the recovery mechanism, which establishes the design obligation and the ethical responsibility accompanying deliberate human re-assumption of control. The paper argues that human re-entry into the decision loop is not a passive option but an active cognitive event requiring intentional bandwidth restoration. The design of AI systems must incorporate structured re-entry pathways, here termed recovery mechanisms, that preserve human agency while appropriately distributing responsibility. The model further predicts a terminal state, here termed preference inversion, in which functional dependence on AI assistance is experienced not as a deficit but as a preference, transforming the restoration of autonomy from a design problem into a cultural and political one. Implications are drawn for AI system design, governance frameworks, and human factors research.

Ancuta Margondai, Julie Rader, Emma Rader +2

Department of Modeling and Simulation University of Central Florida

AI-Assisted Decision Making Human-AI Decision Making Human Oversight of AI Cognitive Offloading

Jun 10, 2026cs.AI

Strategic Decision Support for AI Agents

Traditionally, decision support studies how humans use machine learning models to make better decisions. In modern agentic systems, this division of roles is increasingly reversed: AI agents act on behalf of users, while humans and tools becomes support mechanisms around them. This role reversal brings reliability concerns to the forefront, since agentic errors can be consequential and agent behavior must remain aligned with human goals and constraints. Departing from the classical view of decision support, we revisit its two basic principles, the cost--value tradeoff of seeking support and the role of uncertainty quantification, in a setting where AI agents are the central actors. We propose a framework for strategic decision support for AI agents through an optimization problem that minimizes support usage subject to controlling a counterfactual missed-support error: the probability that the agent acts alone on instances where support would have materially improved its output. At the population level, we show that the optimal policy is a threshold rule on the value of support. Building on this structure, we develop an online algorithm that adaptively thresholds such a score and uses randomized exploration to control missed-support error without distributional assumptions. We further introduce a calibration-on-the-fly method that reduces unnecessary support calls online. We instantiate this framework across diverse scenarios, including information gathering, human--AI collaboration, and tool use, showing how each can be modeled through the same strategic decision-support lens. Experiments across these settings show that our method reliably controls the target error while substantially reducing support usage in practice.

Shayan Kiyani, Sima Noorani, George Pappas +1

University of Pennsylvania

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Using Agents Human-AI Decision Making

Jun 9, 2026stat.ML

Human-AI Teaming Through the Lens of Calibration

We study models for human-AI teaming through the lens of statistical calibration. We assume the team consists of an AI model and human -- both of which are calibrated with respect to some partitioning of the feature space -- and expose how the calibration assumptions propagate into the teaming framework. In particular, we consider frameworks that either (i) combine human and model predictions or (ii) delegate prediction responsibility to either a human or model. We show via theoretical and empirical results that existing methods for combination do not preserve the human's degree of calibration. Methods for delegation (by the very act of delegation) preserve calibration of the downstream predictors but shift the burden onto the rejector meta-model that decides who predicts. The rejector must be calibrated finely enough to locate where each member is superior, a demand that grows with the human's expertise and becomes unattainable when the human relies on information the system cannot observe.

Eric Nalisnick, Chi Zhang, Sophia Qian +1

Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University · Department of Statistics University of Michigan

Learning to Defer Model Calibration Human-AI Decision Making Human-AI Collaboration

Jun 4, 2026cs.AI

A Framework for Measuring Appropriate Reliance on Set-Valued AI Advice

Appropriate reliance on AI advice has become a central research theme in human-AI collaboration. Existing frameworks have focused exclusively on point predictions as AI advice. However, set-valued AI advice (e.g., discrete sets or continuous intervals) is increasingly being used to communicate uncertainty and improve human decision making. In this paper, we develop the first formal framework for measuring appropriate reliance on set-valued AI advice within the sequential judge-advisor paradigm, spanning both classification and regression tasks. For classification, we first introduce the dimensions that are necessary for evaluating set-valued AI advice. We then define two metrics: correct reliance rate on AI and correct reliance rate on self, which jointly characterize appropriate reliance in this setting. For regression, we introduce quantity of AI reliance and quality of AI reliance, which respectively measure whether a decision maker utilized the AI advice and whether their reliance helped them get closer to the ground truth relative to their initial estimate. Through the application of our framework, we demonstrate how these metrics capture important nuances in human-AI collaboration that existing measures overlook.

Ranjan Mishra, Jakob Schoeffer

University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Human-AI Decision Making Human-AI Collaboration

Jun 3, 2026cs.CL

Probing Outcome-Level Resemblance and Mechanism-Level Alignment in LLM Risk Decisions: Evidence from the St. Petersburg Game

LLMs can appear cautious in risk decision-making tasks, yet cautious-looking outputs do not necessarily indicate alignment with human decision-making mechanisms. We investigate this distinction using the St. Petersburg game as a controlled testbed, a classical paradox in which the expected payoff is infinite, yet humans typically report low, finite willingness to pay. We evaluate 28 LLMs with a structured prompt suite that includes the original game; controlled decision variants that perturb truncation, repeated play, numeric endowment, and occupational identity; a human-perspective prompt that asks models to reason as human decision makers; and paired comparisons between base models and their instruction-tuned counterparts. In the original game, most models generate finite bids, creating the appearance of human-like risk behavior. However, this outcome-level resemblance masks substantial mechanism-level differences. The controlled variants reveal that rather than maintaining human-like behavior seen in the original game, models often shift to conditionally and computationally rational behavior. Human-cue prompting and instruction tuning often lower bids and reduce some visible pathologies, but most mechanism-level response patterns remain largely unchanged. These findings show that behavioral alignment in risk decision-making can be surface-level: LLMs may produce human-like risk decisions without exhibiting human-consistent mechanisms. High-stakes evaluations of LLM decision-making should therefore move beyond outcome similarity and examine whether the alignment is supported by mechanism-level consistency.

Chensong Huang, Changyu Chen, Chenwei Lin +3

Fudan University · University of Rochester

LLM Alignment LLM Decision-Making Human-AI Decision Making Decision-Making under Uncertainty

May 29, 2026cs.CY

Neither Replacement nor Panacea: Comparing LLM-Based Conversational and Graphical Decision Support in Industrial Tasks

Managers in manufacturing settings rely on digital interfaces to interpret operational data for decision-making, but growing data volume and complexity can make relevant insights difficult to identify efficiently. While dashboards remain dominant in industrial contexts, Large Language Model (LLM)-based conversational agents (CAs), accessed through conversational user interfaces (CUIs), may provide more direct access to such data. However, their effectiveness may depend on the information-processing demands of the task. This study compares an LLM-based CA delivered through a CUI with a dashboard in a manufacturing decision-support scenario. In a mixed factorial experiment with a 2x3 design, 134 industrial decision-makers were assigned to one interface condition and completed three tasks of increasing complexity. We examined perceived Mental Workload (MWL), decision accuracy, completion time, and intended reliance, and tested self-reported data literacy as a moderator. Results showed that the CUI reduced perceived MWL overall and supported faster completion in less demanding tasks, but both advantages diminished as task complexity increased. Neither interface produced a consistent overall advantage in decision accuracy, and the CUI was not preferred as a sole basis for subsequent decisions. Furthermore, data literacy did not reliably moderate interface effects. These findings indicate that conversational interaction offers conditional rather than universal benefits for industrial decision support. LLM-based CAs may reduce information-access effort, whereas complex decisions continue to benefit from persistent, inspectable visual representations.

Roberto Figliè, Simone Caputo, Alan Serrano +3

Department of Computer Science, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy · Department of Computer Science, Brunel University of London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

AI-Assisted Decision Making Human-AI Interaction Conversational Agents Human-AI Decision Making

May 29, 2026cs.HC

Personalized to Persuade: The Effects of Contextualization and Warmth on Trust and Reliance in Conversational AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents personalize their responses by tailoring explanations to users' backgrounds, interests, and prior interactions, referred to as contextualization. Personalization has been identified as a persuasive strategy in politics or in marketing. However, the persuasive effect of contextualization in everyday tasks, where users often lack prior knowledge, remains unclear. We conducted a

2\times2

between-subjects experiment (

N = 380

) examining how contextualization, combined with conversational warmth, shapes reliance and persuasiveness of an AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations. Our findings reveal that contextualization reduces the persuasive power of AI, but its combination with warmth restores persuasiveness through a crossover interaction. Reliance on AI is present across conditions and is invariant to the conversational design. Trust strongly predicts both persuasion and reliance, yet neither contextualization nor warmth operates through trust. AI literacy decouples trust from behavior: more literate users report lower trust in the assistant, yet are more persuaded and more reliant on its advice. These results suggest that users are prone to deferring to AI agents over human expert judgment; however, interface-level conversational design choices have a limited role in shaping the behavior.

Mert Yazan, Suzan Verberne, Frederik Bungaran Ishak Situmeang

Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences Amsterdam, Netherlands · University of Leiden Leiden, Netherlands

Trust in AI Conversational Agents Human-AI Decision Making

May 29, 2026cs.CY

Comparing LLM-Based Conversational and Graphical Interfaces for Industrial Decision Tasks: An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study

The use of Generative AI Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) as a new way to access and analyze data is growing in all sectors, and the industrial one is no exception. There, large amounts of data produced by IoT devices are flowing through user interfaces and may require them a new adaptation to the new analyses needs of decision-makers. LLM-based CUIs are promising a new way to directly interact with those data through the directness of natural language and without the learning costs that every GUI design has. Moreover, the capabilities of LLMs and their agency open up the possibility to automate some tasks and help with the reasoning during decision-making activities. But are this promises well founded? We try to scope this general question with a mixed-approach study comparing a state-of-the-art dashboard with a conversational agent. A total of 20 participants used both interfaces to complete four simulated industrial decision tasks of varying complexity. We combined measures of mental workload, completion time, and decision accuracy with a post-study questionnaire and semi-structured interviews analyzed through thematic analysis. The findings suggest that the conversational agent can reduce interactional effort by supporting more direct access to information, while the dashboard remains valuable for overview and verification. However, these benefits may vary across tasks and require validation through larger-scale studies.

Roberto Figliè, Simone Caputo, Alan Serrano +2

Department of Computer Science, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy · San Matteo Hospital, Pavia, Italy · Department of Computer Science, Brunel University of London, London, United Kingdom

AI-Assisted Decision Making Human-AI Interaction Conversational Agents Human-AI Decision Making

May 29, 2026cs.MA

Design and Evaluation of Multi-Agent AI Oracle Systems for Prediction Market Resolution

Prediction markets aggregate collective intelligence to forecast uncertain events, but their utility depends on reliable outcome resolution. Existing oracle systems tradeoff fast but brittle automation against accurate but costly human arbitration. Single-LLM oracles achieve meaningful accuracy but inherit all failure modes of their underlying model with no self-correction mechanism. We evaluate whether multi-agent LLM architectures can improve oracle resolution accuracy over single-model baselines. We compare independent aggregation and deliberative consensus against single-LLM baselines (GPT-5 Nano, DeepSeek V3, and Llama-3.3-70B) on 1,189 resolved prediction market questions from KalshiBench. All agents share a common evidence layer through Exa, with retrieval filtered by publication date to isolate reasoning from retrieval quality. Independent aggregation with confidence-weighted voting achieves the highest accuracy at 83.43 percent, outperforming the best individual model by 1.01 percentage points. Deliberative consensus degrades accuracy to approximately 76 percent, below every single-model baseline, attributed to error propagation during debate where confidently wrong models flip correct ones. Error correlations across models (0.529-0.689) explain why aggregation gains fall short of the theoretical Condorcet ceiling, placing a fundamental limit on ensemble approaches. Many questions resist correction by any multi-agent architecture, motivating escalation to human arbitration. We propose routing criteria for hybrid AI-human oracle systems: auto-resolving only unanimous, high-confidence questions yields 97.87 percent accuracy on 47 percent of the dataset, with inter-agent disagreement flagging the remainder for human review.

Tarun Kota

Yale University

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Multi-Agent Debate Language Model Ensembles Human-AI Decision Making Prediction Markets

May 28, 2026cs.AI

Surfacing Isolated Learners with Outcome-Independent Mediation of Feedback between Teachers and Students Using AI

AI-augmented classrooms generate rich teacher and student feedback before graded outcomes become available, yet these signals can be difficult to translate into timely instructional decisions. We propose an interpretable decision layer: a transparent mechanism that ranks course topics requiring attention without using grades or post-hoc outcome labels. The approach combines three signals: student learning difficulty prevalence, disagreement between learner self-reports and observed difficulties, and unresolved teacher concerns. The output is a ranked set of topic priorities with per-topic decision records explaining each ranking. In one graduate CS course offering (

n=5

instructor interviews;

n=279

survey responses), prioritized topics aligned with instructor concerns (top-5 overlap 3/5; Spearman

ρ=0.80

) and student-reported topic difficulty (

ρ=0.46

,

p=.048

). Multi-signal integration also surfaced learners not identified through individual signal sources alone (AUC

=0.96

vs.

0.91

for gap prevalence alone). Reflective thinking, help-seeking, and self-efficacy provided additional evidence that student behavioral signals align with learning-related constructs. While preliminary, these findings suggest that transparent coordination mechanisms may help support human-AI co-agency when feedback is incomplete.

Junsoo Park, Youssef Medhat, Htet Phyo Wai +2

Georgia Institute Of Technology, North Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA

Explainable Artificial Intelligence AI in Education Educational Data Mining Human-AI Decision Making Teacher-Student Learning

May 27, 2026cs.HC

The Decision to Verify: How Warmth and User Characteristics Shape Reliance on Conversational Agents for Information Search

Conversational artificial intelligence (AI) provides an efficient and convenient gateway to information access. However, it can cause overreliance when users blindly trust AI and accept its answers without fact-checking. Information search increasingly follows a hybrid interaction paradigm that combines conversational AI with web search, making fact-checking easier. In this paper, we examine whether this interaction paradigm is effective in curbing reliance. We further investigate the underlying factors (e.g., digital literacy and conversation warmth) that drive users to verify AI answers. We conduct a mixed-subjects question-answering experiment where participants interact with either a warm or a neutral chatbot. Our findings reveal that reliance persists despite users having access to both conversational and web search. The decision to verify is driven primarily by existing user perceptions (e.g., prior trust in chatbots) rather than answer properties, with some users fact-checking regardless of the context and others trusting chatbots by default. Warm conversational style has an indirect yet critical influence on reliance by increasing agreement with the chatbot when it is incorrect. Consulting additional AI sources predicts higher accuracy, while traditional web search does not. Our study extends overreliance research by: (a) demonstrating its persistence despite access to fact-checking, (b) identifying verification behavior as user-dependent, and (c) revealing conversational warmth's indirect effect on overreliance with implications for designing trustworthy conversational search systems.

Mert Yazan, Frederik Bungaran Ishak Situmeang, Suzan Verberne

Conversational Search Trust in AI Human-AI Decision Making

May 27, 2026cs.AI

AI, Take the Wheel: What Drives Delegation and Trust in Human-Computer Cooperative Question Answering?

AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.

Maharshi Gor, Yoo Yeon Sung, Yu Hou +4

University of Maryland College Park, MD, USA · University of California Berkeley, CA, USA · Phasechange.ai Lakewood, CO, USA +1

Human-AI Agreement Trust in AI Human-AI Decision Making Human-AI Collaboration

May 27, 2026cs.AI

The Illusion of Opting in AI-Mediated Consequential Decisions

Drawing on Ullmann-Margalit's concept of opting (transformative, irrevocable, and shadowed by foreclosed alternatives), we show that current AI systems raise a profound ethical problem that existing AI ethics has not fully captured: the illusion of opting, in which persons and groups encounter the deceptive appearance of meaningful consequential choice while the agency needed to become genuinely capable of choosing is weakened. Against approaches that treat AI primarily as an optimizer of already given ends, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated by whether they protect and cultivate meta-capacity against the illusion of opting: the socially and institutionally scaffolded agentive capacity through which means and ends can be formed, contested, revised, and owned. This reframing is especially urgent for disadvantaged populations, who are least able to absorb the costs of the illusion of opting when AI-mediated pathways misdirect behavior and action. We propose three normative imperatives for AI-mediated consequential decisions: existential honesty, which acknowledges the limits of prediction; ecological rationality, which situates guidance within heterogeneous lived ecologies; and counterfactual reparation, which acknowledges and repairs foreclosed alternatives when AI-mediated decision-making pathways fail.

Eugene Yu Ji

University of Waterloo · Mila – Quebec AI Institute

Human-Centered AI Human-AI Decision Making Responsible AI

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Human Decision-Making with AI Assistance under Correlated Features

Humans increasingly make decisions with AI assistance; for example, doctors may follow AI-recommended diagnostic tests and base their diagnoses on the results. A natural question is which tests should AI recommend to balance short-term decision quality and long-term human learning when different features (e.g., test results) are correlated. While prior work establishes that stationary policies that recommend the same tests repeatedly are optimal when features are independent, we prove that feature correlations lead such policies to perform arbitrarily poorly. Instead, we prove that any optimal policy must follow an explore-then-commit structure; initially, the AI should offer diverse tests so humans can learn accurate feature coefficients, then the AI should commit to a single set of tests, with exploration length that depends on the degree of feature correlation. We prove that computing the optimal policy is NP-hard and derive a dynamic programming-based algorithm that finds the optimal policy for finite horizons. We additionally develop an approximation that plans for shorter horizons and appends a stationary suffix, achieving near-optimal performance. Our empirical results complement our theory by showing that stronger feature correlation leads to longer exploration phases.

Yanru Guan, Naveen Raman, Fei Fang

Carnegie Mellon University

AI-Assisted Decision Making Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoff Sequential Decision Making Human-AI Decision Making

May 26, 2026cs.AI

Reasoning and Planning with Dynamically Changing Norms

To safely interact with humans, AI agents must both know our norms and consider them during planning. However, such norm-guided planning has been less explored, only within communities of artificial agents, and has ignored the dynamic nature of norms. This paper instead presents an approach to guiding planning with dynamically changing norms in a human-AI setting. We contribute a defeasible calculus for resolving normative conflicts and an approach to using such dynamically changing norms as guard rails on plans. We theoretically demonstrate our approach with formal proofs and empirically with an AI agent, SocialBot, on a natural language dialogue task.

Taylor Olson, Roberto Salas-Damian, Kenneth D. Forbus

University of Iowa · Northwestern University

Symbolic Planning AI Agent Safety Human-AI Decision Making Moral Reasoning

May 25, 2026cs.HC

The Timing Dependencies of Trust: Speed, Accuracy, and cBCI Neuro-Decoupling in Human-AI Teams

The speed and accuracy of an artificial teammate fundamentally alter the failure states of Human-AI integration. While high-speed AI interventions risk inducing reflexive blind compliance, delayed interventions can induce ambiguous cognitive conflict. This study investigates how the fundamental characteristics of an in-task AI assistant, Fast/Less-Accurate (FLA-AI) versus Slow/Accurate (SA-AI) impact the synergy of Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface (cBCI) teams in a Virtual Reality drone task. Seventeen operators completed continuous search tasks under high cognitive workload while their spatial covariance was mapped using a 2D Adaptive Riemannian Oracle. The results mathematically demonstrate that AI timing dictates the mechanism of team failure. Fast AI induced instant, blind compliance; human accuracy under deception collapsed to 50.2%, and pure behavioural teams (N=8) failed to scale beyond 74.1%. In contrast, Slow AI induced delayed cognitive conflict; humans hesitated (61.1% accuracy), but N=8 behavioural teams eventually recovered to 100.0%. Crucially, the Riemannian Oracle mathematically adapted to these states: it heavily restricted temporal windows (< 0.8s) to intercept fast reflexive compliance, while widening windows (> 1.2s) to capture delayed cognitive conflict. Integrating these isolated veridical signals via Hybrid Fusion successfully rescued the Fast AI team (+7.6% at N=8) and significantly accelerated the recovery of smaller Slow AI teams (+6.9% at N=4). These findings prove that cBCI synergy is heavily contingent on the temporal dynamics of trust, providing a critical framework for designing dynamically gated Human-AI systems.

Christopher Baker, Stephen Hinton, Akashdeep Nijjar +4

School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Queen's University Belfast · School of Psychology Liverpool John Moores University · School of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering University of Essex +1

Brain-Computer Interfaces Trust in AI Human-AI Decision Making Human-AI Collaboration