Human-AI Collaborative Game Testing with Vision Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11782v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:14:23 GMT
• Title: Human-AI Collaborative Game Testing with Vision Language Models
• Authors: Boran Zhang, Muhan Xu, Zhijun Pan,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates how AI can improve game testing by developing and experimenting with an AI-assisted workflow. We evaluate the effectiveness of AI assistance under four conditions: with or without AI support, and with or without detailed knowledge of defects and design documentation. Results indicate that AI assistance significantly improves defect identification performance, particularly when paired with detailed knowledge.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: As modern video games become increasingly complex, traditional manual testing methods are proving costly and inefficient, limiting the ability to ensure high-quality game experiences. While advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) offer the potential to assist human testers, the effectiveness of AI in truly enhancing real-world human performance remains underexplored. This study investigates how AI can improve game testing by developing and experimenting with an AI-assisted workflow that leverages state-of-the-art machine learning models for defect detection. Through an experiment involving 800 test cases and 276 participants of varying backgrounds, we evaluate the effectiveness of AI assistance under four conditions: with or without AI support, and with or without detailed knowledge of defects and design documentation. The results indicate that AI assistance significantly improves defect identification performance, particularly when paired with detailed knowledge. However, challenges arise when AI errors occur, negatively impacting human decision-making. Our findings show the importance of optimizing human-AI collaboration and implementing strategies to mitigate the effects of AI inaccuracies. By this research, we demonstrate AI's potential and problems in enhancing efficiency and accuracy in game testing workflows and offers practical insights for integrating AI into the testing process.

Related papers

• Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show the effects of performance pressure on AI advice reliance when laypeople complete a common AI-assisted task. We find that when the stakes are high, people use AI advice more appropriately than when stakes are lower, regardless of the presence of an AI explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Comparing Zealous and Restrained AI Recommendations in a Real-World Human-AI Collaboration Task [11.040918613968854]
  We argue that careful exploitation of the tradeoff between precision and recall can significantly improve team performance. We analyze the performance of 78 professional annotators working with a) no AI assistance, b) a high-precision "restrained" AI, and c) a high-recall "zealous" AI in over 3,466 person-hours of annotation work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T23:19:19Z)
• The Impact of Imperfect XAI on Human-AI Decision-Making [8.305869611846775]
  We evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T15:19:36Z)
• Human-AI Collaboration: The Effect of AI Delegation on Human Task Performance and Task Satisfaction [0.0]
  We show that task performance and task satisfaction improve through AI delegation. We identify humans' increased levels of self-efficacy as the underlying mechanism for these improvements. Our findings provide initial evidence that allowing AI models to take over more management responsibilities can be an effective form of human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T11:02:46Z)
• BO-Muse: A human expert and AI teaming framework for accelerated experimental design [58.61002520273518]
  Our algorithm lets the human expert take the lead in the experimental process. We show that our algorithm converges sub-linearly, at a rate faster than the AI or human alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-03T02:56:05Z)
• Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behavior [14.904401331154062]
  People work with AI systems to improve their decision making, but often under- or over-rely on AI predictions and perform worse than they would have unassisted. To help people appropriately rely on AI aids, we propose showing them behavior descriptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-06T00:33:08Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)
• Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making [10.890854857970488]
  Many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user's domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more. Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled. Our results show that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid user decision making, factors such as users' baseline performance relative to the AI and complementary tuning of AI error types significantly impact overall team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T21:39:58Z)
• Human Decision Makings on Curriculum Reinforcement Learning with Difficulty Adjustment [52.07473934146584]
  We guide the curriculum reinforcement learning results towards a preferred performance level that is neither too hard nor too easy via learning from the human decision process. Our system is highly parallelizable, making it possible for a human to train large-scale reinforcement learning applications. It shows reinforcement learning performance can successfully adjust in sync with the human desired difficulty level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-04T23:53:51Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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.