Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the ``black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being applied in almost every field. At the same time, the currently dominant deep learning methods are fundamentally black-box systems that lack explanations for their inferences, significantly limiting their trustworthiness and adoption. Explainable AI (XAI) methods aim to overcome this challenge by providing explanations of the models' decision process. Such methods are often proposed and developed by engineers and scientists with a predominantly technical background and incorporate their assumptions about the existence, validity, and explanatory utility of different conceivable explanatory mechanisms. However, the basic concept of an explanation -- what it is, whether we can know it, whether it is absolute or relative -- is far from trivial and has been the subject of deep philosophical debate for millennia. As we point out here, the assumptions incorporated into different XAI methods are not harmless and have important consequences for the validity and interpretation of AI explanations in different domains. We investigate ontological and epistemological assumptions in explainability methods when they are applied to AI systems, meaning the assumptions we make about the existence of explanations and our ability to gain knowledge about those explanations. Our analysis shows how seemingly small technical changes to an XAI method may correspond to important differences in the underlying assumptions about explanations. We furthermore highlight the risks of ignoring the underlying onto-epistemological paradigm when choosing an XAI method for a given application, and we discuss how to select and adapt appropriate XAI methods for different domains of application.

In the context of AI-based decision support systems, explanations can help users to judge when to trust the AI's suggestion, and when to question it. In this way, human oversight can prevent AI errors and biased decision-making. However, this rests on the assumption that users will consider explanations in enough detail to be able to catch such errors. We conducted an online study on trust in explainable DSS, and were surprised to find that in many cases, participants spent little time on the explanation and did not always consider it in detail. We present an exploratory analysis of this data, investigating what factors impact how carefully study participants consider AI explanations, and how this in turn impacts whether they are open to changing their mind based on what the AI suggests.

Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign.

Understanding the decisions made and actions taken by increasingly complex AI system remains a key challenge. This has led to an expanding field of research in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), highlighting the potential of explanations to enhance trust, support adoption, and meet regulatory standards. However, the question of what constitutes a "good" explanation is dependent on the goals, stakeholders, and context. At a high level, psychological insights such as the concept of mental model alignment can offer guidance, but success in practice is challenging due to social and technical factors. As a result of this ill-defined nature of the problem, explanations can be of poor quality (e.g. unfaithful, irrelevant, or incoherent), potentially leading to substantial risks. Instead of fostering trust and safety, poorly designed explanations can actually cause harm, including wrong decisions, privacy violations, manipulation, and even reduced AI adoption. Therefore, we caution stakeholders to beware of explanations of AI: while they can be vital, they are not automatically a remedy for transparency or responsible AI adoption, and their misuse or limitations can exacerbate harm. Attention to these caveats can help guide future research to improve the quality and impact of AI explanations.

Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the ``black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them.

A growing research explores the usage of AI explanations on user's decision phases for human-AI collaborative decision-making. However, previous studies found the issues of overreliance on `wrong' AI outputs. In this paper, we propose interactive example-based explanations to improve health professionals' onboarding with AI for their better reliance on AI during AI-assisted decision-making. We implemented an AI-based decision support system that utilizes a neural network to assess the quality of post-stroke survivors' exercises and interactive example-based explanations that systematically surface the nearest neighborhoods of a test/task sample from the training set of the AI model to assist users' onboarding with the AI model. To investigate the effect of interactive example-based explanations, we conducted a study with domain experts, health professionals to evaluate their performance and reliance on AI. Our interactive example-based explanations during onboarding assisted health professionals in having a better reliance on AI and making a higher ratio of making `right' decisions and a lower ratio of `wrong' decisions than providing only feature-based explanations during the decision-support phase. Our study discusses new challenges of assisting user's onboarding with AI for human-AI collaborative decision-making.

Today, AI systems are increasingly integrated into everyday workplaces. However, as AI systems become more prevalent in everyday workplaces, their integration has not always been as smooth or successful as anticipated. A significant reason for this is the gap between user (worker) expectations and the actual capabilities of AI systems. This gap often leads to user dissatisfaction and poor adoption rates, highlighting the need for better design approaches to align user needs with AI functionalities. To address these design challenges, it's crucial to understand dual perspectives: both the user's and the AI system's point of view. From the user's viewpoint, designers need to comprehend their information and interaction needs, routines, and skills.