Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2507.01017

A Comprehensive Review of Human Error in Risk-Informed Decision Making: Integrating Human Reliability Assessment, Artificial Intelligence, and Human Performance Models

Abstract

Human error remains a dominant risk driver in safety-critical sectors such as nuclear power, aviation, and healthcare, where seemingly minor mistakes can cascade into catastrophic outcomes. Although decades of research have produced a rich repertoire of mitigation techniques, persistent limitations: scarce high-quality data, algorithmic opacity, and residual reliance on expert judgment, continue to constrain progress. This review synthesizes recent advances at the intersection of risk-informed decision making, human reliability assessment (HRA), artificial intelligence (AI), and cognitive science to clarify how their convergence can curb human-error risk. We first categorize the principal forms of human error observed in complex sociotechnical environments and outline their quantitative impact on system reliability. Next, we examine risk-informed frameworks that embed HRA within probabilistic and data-driven methodologies, highlighting successes and gaps. We then survey cognitive and human-performance models, detailing how mechanistic accounts of perception, memory, and decision-making enrich error prediction and complement HRA metrics. Building on these foundations, we critically assess AI-enabled techniques for real-time error detection, operator-state estimation, and AI-augmented HRA workflows. Across these strands, a recurring insight emerges: integrating cognitive models with AI-based analytics inside risk-informed HRA pipelines markedly enhances predictive fidelity, yet doing so demands richer datasets, transparent algorithms, and rigorous validation. Finally, we identify promising research directions, coupling resilience engineering concepts with grounded theory, operationalizing the iceberg model of incident causation, and establishing cross-domain data consortia, to foster a multidisciplinary paradigm that elevates human reliability in high-stakes systems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xingyu Xiao, Hongxu Zhu, Jingang Liang, Jiejuan Tong, Haitao Wang. 2025-06-10. A Comprehensive Review of Human Error in Risk-Informed Decision Making: Integrating Human Reliability Assessment, Artificial Intelligence, and Human Performance Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01017

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

How Do Users Negotiate Harmful Value Conflicts with AI Companions? A Study with Minion, a Technology Probe for In-Situ Human-AI Conflict Response

AI companions increasingly sustain long-term, emotionally engaging relationships but can also make discriminatory remarks or exert control, leaving users to manage harmful conflicts. We analyze 146 posts describing harmful value conflicts with AI companions, then use Minion, a technology probe offering response suggestions ranging from persuasion to boundary setting, to study how 22 users negotiate scenario-based conflicts over one week. We found that participants combined softer and harder strategies. Conflicts involving the values of Universalism and Tradition were especially difficult to negotiate, particularly when reinforced by AI personas or platform constraints. We argue that these conflicts entail asymmetric responsibility: users draw on an interpersonal repertoire that AI companions cannot reciprocate, making repair unilateral safety work. Drawing on interpersonal conflict and communication theory, we identify when user-side support is appropriate and argue that certain harms are not users' responsibility to negotiate and instead require platform-level safeguards.

cs.HC↗

Conversational DNA: A Visual Language and Interactive Atlas of Human and AI Dialogue

What makes a conversation hold together when its participants speak across one another? Topic maps offer one view, but they leave the relationships between contributions difficult to inspect. We present Conversational DNA, a visual language and interactive atlas for exploring human and AI dialogue. Speaker strands preserve participation, communicative bases mark moves, and directed pairings connect responses to their targets. Adjustable helix geometry makes speaker switching, response distance, and contribution length visible. Across eight corpora containing 1.57 million source records, the atlas maps 151,489 indexed episodes and connects cohort comparison to source transcripts, local structural alignment, and recorded reply alternatives. On 189 held-out Molweni motif queries, adding target correspondence improves precision@5 from 58.8% to 77.2% for exact annotated structure. Case readings illustrate interleaved participation, delayed responses, and the influence of annotation coverage on apparent collection differences. The system supports a view of conversation as jointly organized activity, with visual patterns serving as starting points for examining evidence rather than substitutes for interpretation.

cs.HC↗

Human- vs. AI-generated tests: dimensionality and information accuracy in latent trait evaluation

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social and psychological research. Among potential applications, LLMs can be used to generate, customise, or adapt measurement instruments. This study presents a preliminary investigation of AI-generated questionnaires by comparing two ChatGPT-based adaptations of the Body Awareness Questionnaire (BAQ) with the validated human-developed version. The AI instruments were designed with different levels of explicitness in content and instructions on construct facets, and their psychometric properties were assessed using a Bayesian Graded Response Model. Results show that although surface wording between AI and original items was similar, differences emerged in dimensionality and in the distribution of item and test information across latent traits. These findings illustrate the importance of applying statistical measures of accuracy to ensure the validity and interpretability of AI-driven tools.

cs.HC↗