Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

We propose a novel symbolic modeling framework for decision-making under risk that merges interpretability with the core insights of Prospect Theory. Our approach replaces opaque utility curves and probability weighting functions with transparent, effect-size-guided features. We mathematically formalize the method, demonstrate its ability to replicate well-known framing and loss-aversion phenomena, and provide an end-to-end empirical validation on synthetic datasets. The resulting model achieves competitive predictive performance while yielding clear coefficients mapped onto psychological constructs, making it suitable for applications ranging from AI safety to economic policy analysis.

Explainable AI is increasingly employing argumentation methods to facilitate interactive explanations between AI agents and human users. While existing approaches typically rely on predetermined human user models, there remains a critical gap in dynamically learning and updating these models during interactions. In this paper, we present a framework that enables AI agents to adapt their understanding of human users through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach, called Persona, draws on prospect theory and integrates a probability weighting function with a Bayesian belief update mechanism that refines a probability distribution over possible human models based on exchanged arguments. Through empirical evaluations with human users in an applied argumentation setting, we demonstrate that Persona effectively captures evolving human beliefs, facilitates personalized interactions, and outperforms state-of-the-art methods.

Hybrid human-ML systems increasingly make consequential decisions in a wide range of domains. These systems are often introduced with the expectation that the combined human-ML system will achieve complementary performance, that is, the combined decision-making system will be an improvement compared with either decision-making agent in isolation. However, empirical results have been mixed, and existing research rarely articulates the sources and mechanisms by which complementary performance is expected to arise. Our goal in this work is to provide conceptual tools to advance the way researchers reason and communicate about human-ML complementarity. Drawing upon prior literature in human psychology, machine learning, and human-computer interaction, we propose a taxonomy characterizing distinct ways in which human and ML-based decision-making can differ. In doing so, we conceptually map potential mechanisms by which combining human and ML decision-making may yield complementary performance, developing a language for the research community to reason about design of hybrid systems in any decision-making domain. To illustrate how our taxonomy can be used to investigate complementarity, we provide a mathematical aggregation framework to examine enabling conditions for complementarity. Through synthetic simulations, we demonstrate how this framework can be used to explore specific aspects of our taxonomy and shed light on the optimal mechanisms for combining human-ML judgments

While human behavior models based on repeated Stackelberg games have been proposed for domains such as "wildlife crime" where there is repeated interaction between the defender and the adversary, there has been no empirical study with human subjects to show the effectiveness of such models. This paper presents an initial study based on extensive human subject experiments with participants on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). Our findings include: (i) attackers may view the defender’s coverage probability in a non-linear fashion; specifically it follows an S-shaped curve, and (ii) there are significant losses in defender utility when strategies generated by existing models are deployed in repeated Stackelberg game settings against human subjects.