Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2309.03212

Improving the State of the Art for Training Human-AI Teams: Technical Report #2 -- Results of Researcher Knowledge Elicitation Survey

Abstract

A consensus report produced for the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Mathematics documented a prevalent and increasing desire to support human-Artificial Intelligence (AI) teaming across military service branches. Sonalysts has begun an internal initiative to explore the training of Human-AI teams. The first step in this effort is to develop a Synthetic Task Environment (STE) that is capable of facilitating research on Human-AI teams. Our goal is to create a STE that offers a task environment that could support the breadth of research that stakeholders plan to perform within this domain. As a result, we wanted to sample the priorities of the relevant research community broadly, and the effort documented in this report is our initial attempt to do so. We created a survey that featured two types of questions. The first asked respondents to report their agreement with STE features that we anticipated might be important. The second represented open-ended questions that asked respondents to specify their priorities within several dimensions of the anticipated STE. The research team invited nineteen researchers from academic and Government labs to participate, and 11 were able to complete the survey. The team analyzed their responses to identify themes that emerged and topics that would benefit from further analysis. The most significant finding of the survey was that a number of researchers felt that various open-source STEs that would meet our needs already exist. Researchers also emphasized the need for automated transcription and coding tools to ease the burden of assessing inter-team communications; the importance of robust data capture and export capabilities; and the desirability of extensive flexibility across many aspects of the tool.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James E. McCarthy, Lillian Asiala, LeeAnn Maryeski, Dawn Sillars. 2023-08-29. Improving the State of the Art for Training Human-AI Teams: Technical Report #2 -- Results of Researcher Knowledge Elicitation Survey. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.03212

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC