Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19098v1
• Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:52:22 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework
• Authors: George Fragiadakis, Christos Diou, George Kousiouris, Mara Nikolaidou,
• Abstract summary: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in working environments with individuals, known as Human-AI Collaboration (HAIC), has become essential. evaluating HAIC's effectiveness remains challenging due to the complex interaction of components involved. This paper provides a detailed analysis of existing HAIC evaluation approaches and develops a fresh paradigm for more effectively evaluating these systems.
• Score: 4.41358655687435
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in working environments with individuals, known as Human-AI Collaboration (HAIC), has become essential in a variety of domains, boosting decision-making, efficiency, and innovation. Despite HAIC's wide potential, evaluating its effectiveness remains challenging due to the complex interaction of components involved. This paper provides a detailed analysis of existing HAIC evaluation approaches and develops a fresh paradigm for more effectively evaluating these systems. Our framework includes a structured decision tree which assists to select relevant metrics based on distinct HAIC modes (AI-Centric, Human-Centric, and Symbiotic). By including both quantitative and qualitative metrics, the framework seeks to represent HAIC's dynamic and reciprocal nature, enabling the assessment of its impact and success. This framework's practicality can be examined by its application in an array of domains, including manufacturing, healthcare, finance, and education, each of which has unique challenges and requirements. Our hope is that this study will facilitate further research on the systematic evaluation of HAIC in real-world applications.

Related papers

• Cooperative Resilience in Artificial Intelligence Multiagent Systems [2.0608564715600273]
  This paper proposes a clear definition of cooperative resilience' and a methodology for its quantitative measurement. The results highlight the crucial role of resilience metrics in analyzing how the collective system prepares for, resists, recovers from, sustains well-being, and transforms in the face of disruptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T03:28:48Z)
• Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition [70.60872754129832]
  First NeurIPS competition on unlearning sought to stimulate the development of novel algorithms. Nearly 1,200 teams from across the world participated. We analyze top solutions and delve into discussions on benchmarking unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:58:00Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• Exploring the Potential of Human-LLM Synergy in Advancing Qualitative Analysis: A Case Study on Mental-Illness Stigma [6.593116883521213]
  Large language models (LLMs) can perform qualitative coding within existing schemes, but their potential for collaborative human-LLM discovery is still underexplored. We propose CHALET, a novel methodology that leverages the human-LLM collaboration paradigm to facilitate conceptualization and empower qualitative research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T13:27:22Z)
• AntEval: Evaluation of Social Interaction Competencies in LLM-Driven Agents [65.16893197330589]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated their ability to replicate human behaviors across a wide range of scenarios. However, their capability in handling complex, multi-character social interactions has yet to be fully explored. We introduce the Multi-Agent Interaction Evaluation Framework (AntEval), encompassing a novel interaction framework and evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T11:18:00Z)
• Evaluating General-Purpose AI with Psychometrics [43.85432514910491]
  We discuss the need for a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of general-purpose AI systems such as large language models. Current evaluation methodology, mostly based on benchmarks of specific tasks, falls short of adequately assessing these versatile AI systems. To tackle these challenges, we suggest transitioning from task-oriented evaluation to construct-oriented evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T05:38:38Z)
• Confounding-Robust Policy Improvement with Human-AI Teams [9.823906892919746]
  We propose a novel solution to address unobserved confounding in human-AI collaboration by employing the marginal sensitivity model (MSM) Our approach combines domain expertise with AI-driven statistical modeling to account for potential confounders that may otherwise remain hidden.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T02:39:52Z)
• Hierarchical Evaluation Framework: Best Practices for Human Evaluation [17.91641890651225]
  The absence of widely accepted human evaluation metrics in NLP hampers fair comparisons among different systems and the establishment of universal assessment standards. We develop our own hierarchical evaluation framework to provide a more comprehensive representation of the NLP system's performance. In future work, we will investigate the potential time-saving benefits of our proposed framework for evaluators assessing NLP systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T09:46:02Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Intrinsic Motivation in Model-based Reinforcement Learning: A Brief Review [77.34726150561087]
  This review considers the existing methods for determining intrinsic motivation based on the world model obtained by the agent. The proposed unified framework describes the architecture of agents using a world model and intrinsic motivation to improve learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-24T15:13:02Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.