Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.27654

CAESAR: Mixed Reality Search-and-Rescue Platform for Cognitive Attack Evaluation

Abstract

Mixed Reality (MR) enables immersive training by tightly coupling virtual content with the physical environment and supporting embodied interaction. In safety-critical collaborative tasks such as search-and-rescue, however, users rely heavily on virtual elements for perception, coordination, and decision-making, making them vulnerable to cognitive attacks that subtly distort visual feedback, virtual content, or system synchronization. While prior MR security research has examined individual attack mechanisms, evaluations are typically conducted in isolated or single-user settings, and there is a lack of standardized collaborative testbeds for systematic adversarial experimentation. In this paper, we develop CAESAR, an end-to-end multi-user MR framework for systematic evaluation of cognitive attacks in collaborative search-and-rescue training. CAESAR features a modular architecture that integrates four classes of cognitive attacks within a synchronized collaborative scenario and incorporates a multimodal data collection pipeline that captures behavioral, performance, and subjective measures under adversarial conditions. We conduct a controlled user study with an in-depth analysis of the latency-based attack, demonstrating measurable effects on task performance and user behavior while characterizing users' subjective experience under adversarial conditions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mingyu Zhu, Jiangong Chen, Yu Liu, Hillmer Chona, Zifan Zhou, Jianan Jiang, Jonathan Dodge, Feng Qian, Mahdi Imani, Tian Lan, Gang Tan, Bin Li. 2026-10-20. CAESAR: Mixed Reality Search-and-Rescue Platform for Cognitive Attack Evaluation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27654

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Knowledge-Certainty Diversity Predicts Human-Human and Human-AI Open-Ended Discussion Synergy and Reveals Pure-AI Discussion Shortfalls

Conversations transform individual knowledge into collective insight, enabling collaborators to solve problems more accurately than they could alone. Whether dialogues among large language models (LLMs) can replicate the synergistic gains observed in human discussion remains unclear. We systematically compared four interaction settings, LLM-LLM pairs, LLM trios, human trios, and human-LLM pairs, using validated medical multiple-choice questions. Agents answered individually, engaged in open-ended discussion, then re-answered, allowing us to quantify conversational gains. Interactions that included humans consistently yielded synergy (post-discussion accuracy increased for both stronger and weaker participants), whereas purely LLM groups did not improve and often declined. To explain and anticipate when open-ended dialogue helps, we introduce an agent-agnostic knowledge-certainty framework that models each participant by performance (accuracy) and confidence. This framework quantifies knowledge-certainty diversity, the degree to which one agent tends to be correct when another is uncertain, and yields an upper bound on the gain available from choosing between the agents' answers on the basis of confidence, which we term Potential Conversation Synergy. Computed before any discussion, this metric was low in both settings where discussion did not help and high in both where it did: When knowledge-certainty diversity is low (as in LLM-only groups), discussion doesn't improve performance; when it is present (as in human or human-LLM groups), open-ended dialogue reliably lifts accuracy. These findings suggest a diagnostic for AI collaboration: knowledge-certainty diversity can be measured from pre-discussion responses and provides a configuration-level indicator of conversational gains across the settings studied.

cs.HC↗

The Feature Understandability Scale for Human-Centred Explainable AI: Assessing Tabular Feature Importance

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly pervasive and powerful, the ability to audit AI-based systems is growing in importance. However, explainability for artificial intelligence systems is not a one-size-fits-all solution; different target audiences have varying requirements and expectations for explanations. While various approaches to explainability have been proposed, most explainable artificial intelligence methods for tabular data focus on explaining the outputs of supervised machine learning models using the input features. However, a user's ability to understand an explanation depends on their understanding of such features. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the system designer to try to pre-select understandable features for producing a global explanation of an ML model. Unfortunately, no measure currently exists to assess the degree to which a user understands a given input feature. This work introduces two psychometrically validated scales that quantitatively seek to assess users' perceived understanding of tabular input features for supervised classification problems. Specifically, these scales, one for numerical and one for categorical data, each with two factors and comprising 8 and 9 items, aim to assign a score to each input feature, effectively producing a rank and allowing for the quantification of feature prioritisation. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrates a strong relationship between such items and a good fit of the two-factor structure for each scale. This research presents a novel method for assessing understanding and outlines potential applications in the domain of explainable artificial intelligence.

cs.HC↗

Large Language Models Can Explain Experts Better Than Experts Themselves

Capturing tacit knowledge, or the "know-how" embedded in individual experiences and contexts, is a central challenge that limits the preservation and transfer of valuable expertise. Traditional methods rely on experts' ability to articulate their own reasoning, even though much of tacit knowledge is difficult to verbalize. Here, we show that Large Language Models (LLMs) can uncover tacit knowledge from expert behavior and support knowledge transfer from experts to novices. We first identify prompting strategies that improve LLMs' ability to externalize tacit knowledge (i.e., transform tacit into explicit knowledge), and then evaluate the downstream utility of the resulting LLM-externalized tacit knowledge. Our analysis reveals that LLM-externalized tacit knowledge incorporating expert behavior improves decision quality and helps reduce the expert-novice score gap, outperforming knowledge articulated by human experts. We further show that LLMs meaningfully learn and extract knowledge from expert behavior rather than simply mimicking expert responses, and that these findings generalize across different LLMs and information retrieval methods. These findings reaffirm Polanyi's Paradox---that "we can know more than we can tell"---and suggest that LLMs can help overcome human experts' articulation bottleneck that has long challenged tacit knowledge externalization.

cs.HC↗