Exploring Human Perceptions of AI Responses: Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study on Risk Mitigation in Generative Models
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866912740971380736 |
|---|---|
| author | Candello, Heloisa Azmat, Muneeza Gunturi, Uma Sushmitha Horesh, Raya de Paula, Rogerio Abreu Pimentel, Heloisa Grave, Marcelo Carpinette Adebiyi, Aminat Machado, Tiago de Macedo, Maysa Malfiza Garcia |
| author_facet | Candello, Heloisa Azmat, Muneeza Gunturi, Uma Sushmitha Horesh, Raya de Paula, Rogerio Abreu Pimentel, Heloisa Grave, Marcelo Carpinette Adebiyi, Aminat Machado, Tiago de Macedo, Maysa Malfiza Garcia |
| contents | With the rapid uptake of generative AI, investigating human perceptions of generated responses has become crucial. A major challenge is their `aptitude' for hallucinating and generating harmful contents. Despite major efforts for implementing guardrails, human perceptions of these mitigation strategies are largely unknown. We conducted a mixed-method experiment for evaluating the responses of a mitigation strategy across multiple-dimensions: faithfulness, fairness, harm-removal capacity, and relevance. In a within-subject study design, 57 participants assessed the responses under two conditions: harmful response plus its mitigation and solely mitigated response. Results revealed that participants' native language, AI work experience, and annotation familiarity significantly influenced evaluations. Participants showed high sensitivity to linguistic and contextual attributes, penalizing minor grammar errors while rewarding preserved semantic contexts. This contrasts with how language is often treated in the quantitative evaluation of LLMs. We also introduced new metrics for training and evaluating mitigation strategies and insights for human-AI evaluation studies. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2512_01892 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Exploring Human Perceptions of AI Responses: Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study on Risk Mitigation in Generative Models Candello, Heloisa Azmat, Muneeza Gunturi, Uma Sushmitha Horesh, Raya de Paula, Rogerio Abreu Pimentel, Heloisa Grave, Marcelo Carpinette Adebiyi, Aminat Machado, Tiago de Macedo, Maysa Malfiza Garcia Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Human-Computer Interaction With the rapid uptake of generative AI, investigating human perceptions of generated responses has become crucial. A major challenge is their `aptitude' for hallucinating and generating harmful contents. Despite major efforts for implementing guardrails, human perceptions of these mitigation strategies are largely unknown. We conducted a mixed-method experiment for evaluating the responses of a mitigation strategy across multiple-dimensions: faithfulness, fairness, harm-removal capacity, and relevance. In a within-subject study design, 57 participants assessed the responses under two conditions: harmful response plus its mitigation and solely mitigated response. Results revealed that participants' native language, AI work experience, and annotation familiarity significantly influenced evaluations. Participants showed high sensitivity to linguistic and contextual attributes, penalizing minor grammar errors while rewarding preserved semantic contexts. This contrasts with how language is often treated in the quantitative evaluation of LLMs. We also introduced new metrics for training and evaluating mitigation strategies and insights for human-AI evaluation studies. |
| title | Exploring Human Perceptions of AI Responses: Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study on Risk Mitigation in Generative Models |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Human-Computer Interaction |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01892 |