Data Quality Challenges in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Organizations increasingly adopt Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to enhance Large Language Models with enterprise-specific knowledge. However, current data quality (DQ) frameworks have been primarily developed for static datasets, and only inadequately address the dynamic, multi-stage nature of RAG systems. This study aims to develop DQ dimensions for this new type of AI-based systems. We conduct 16 semi-structured interviews with practitioners of leading IT service companies. Through a qualitative content analysis, we inductively derive 15 distinct DQ dimensions across the four processing stages of RAG systems: data extraction, data transformation, prompt & search, and generation. Our findings reveal that (1) new dimensions have to be added to traditional DQ frameworks to also cover RAG contexts; (2) these new dimensions are concentrated in early RAG steps, suggesting the need for front-loaded quality management strategies, and (3) DQ issues transform and propagate through the RAG pipeline, necessitating a dynamic, step-aware approach to quality management.

From Consumption to Collaboration: Measuring Interaction Patterns to Augment Human Cognition in Open-Ended Tasks

The rise of Generative AI, and Large Language Models (LLMs) in particular, is fundamentally changing cognitive processes in knowledge work, raising critical questions about their impact on human reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. As these AI systems become increasingly integrated into workflows, they offer unprecedented opportunities for augmenting human thinking while simultaneously risking cognitive erosion through passive consumption of generated answers. This tension is particularly pronounced in open-ended tasks, where effective solutions require deep contextualization and integration of domain knowledge. Unlike structured tasks with established metrics, measuring the quality of human-LLM interaction in such open-ended tasks poses significant challenges due to the absence of ground truth and the iterative nature of solution development. To address this, we present a framework that analyzes interaction patterns along two dimensions: cognitive activity mode (exploration vs. exploitation) and cognitive engagement mode (constructive vs. detrimental). This framework provides systematic measurements to evaluate when LLMs are effective tools for thought rather than substitutes for human cognition, advancing theoretical understanding and practical guidance for developing AI systems that protect and augment human cognitive capabilities.

On the Effect of Contextual Information on Human Delegation Behavior in Human-AI collaboration

The constantly increasing capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) open new possibilities for human-AI collaboration. One promising approach to leverage existing complementary capabilities is allowing humans to delegate individual instances to the AI. However, enabling humans to delegate instances effectively requires them to assess both their own and the AI's capabilities in the context of the given task. In this work, we explore the effects of providing contextual information on human decisions to delegate instances to an AI. We find that providing participants with contextual information significantly improves the human-AI team performance. Additionally, we show that the delegation behavior changes significantly when participants receive varying types of contextual information. Overall, this research advances the understanding of human-AI interaction in human delegation and provides actionable insights for designing more effective collaborative systems.

On the Perception of Difficulty: Differences between Humans and AI

With the increased adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in industry and society, effective human-AI interaction systems are becoming increasingly important. A central challenge in the interaction of humans with AI is the estimation of difficulty for human and AI agents for single task instances.These estimations are crucial to evaluate each agent's capabilities and, thus, required to facilitate effective collaboration. So far, research in the field of human-AI interaction estimates the perceived difficulty of humans and AI independently from each other. However, the effective interaction of human and AI agents depends on metrics that accurately reflect each agent's perceived difficulty in achieving valuable outcomes. Research to date has not yet adequately examined the differences in the perceived difficulty of humans and AI. Thus, this work reviews recent research on the perceived difficulty in human-AI interaction and contributing factors to consistently compare each agent's perceived difficulty, e.g., creating the same prerequisites. Furthermore, we present an experimental design to thoroughly examine the perceived difficulty of both agents and contribute to a better understanding of the design of such systems.

Towards Meaningful Anomaly Detection: The Effect of Counterfactual Explanations on the Investigation of Anomalies in Multivariate Time Series

Detecting rare events is essential in various fields, e.g., in cyber security or maintenance. Often, human experts are supported by anomaly detection systems as continuously monitoring the data is an error-prone and tedious task. However, among the anomalies detected may be events that are rare, e.g., a planned shutdown of a machine, but are not the actual event of interest, e.g., breakdowns of a machine. Therefore, human experts are needed to validate whether the detected anomalies are relevant. We propose to support this anomaly investigation by providing explanations of anomaly detection. Related work only focuses on the technical implementation of explainable anomaly detection and neglects the subsequent human anomaly investigation. To address this research gap, we conduct a behavioral experiment using records of taxi rides in New York City as a testbed. Participants are asked to differentiate extreme weather events from other anomalous events such as holidays or sporting events. Our results show that providing counterfactual explanations do improve the investigation of anomalies, indicating potential for explainable anomaly detection in general.