Model Cards for AI Teammates: Comparing Human-AI Team Familiarization Methods for High-Stakes Environments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13773v1
• Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 23:19:16 GMT
• Title: Model Cards for AI Teammates: Comparing Human-AI Team Familiarization Methods for High-Stakes Environments
• Authors: Ryan Bowers, Richard Agbeyibor, Jack Kolb, Karen Feigh,
• Abstract summary: Three methods of familiarizing a human with an artificial intelligence teammate were studied.<n>The most valuable information about the agent included details of its decision-making algorithms and its relative strengths and weaknesses compared to the human.<n>We recommend a human-AI team familiarization method that combines AI documentation, structured in-situ training, and exploratory interaction.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We compare three methods of familiarizing a human with an artificial intelligence (AI) teammate ("agent") prior to operation in a collaborative, fast-paced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) environment. In a between-subjects user study (n=60), participants either read documentation about the agent, trained alongside the agent prior to the mission, or were given no familiarization. Results showed that the most valuable information about the agent included details of its decision-making algorithms and its relative strengths and weaknesses compared to the human. This information allowed the familiarization groups to form sophisticated team strategies more quickly than the control group. Documentation-based familiarization led to the fastest adoption of these strategies, but also biased participants towards risk-averse behavior that prevented high scores. Participants familiarized through direct interaction were able to infer much of the same information through observation, and were more willing to take risks and experiment with different control modes, but reported weaker understanding of the agent's internal processes. Significant differences were seen between individual participants' risk tolerance and methods of AI interaction, which should be considered when designing human-AI control interfaces. Based on our findings, we recommend a human-AI team familiarization method that combines AI documentation, structured in-situ training, and exploratory interaction.

Related papers

• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• Human-AI Collaboration: Trade-offs Between Performance and Preferences [5.172575113585139]
  We show that agents who are more considerate of human actions are preferred over purely performance-maximizing agents.<n>We find evidence for inequality-aversion effects being a driver of human choices, suggesting that people prefer collaborative agents which allow them to meaningfully contribute to the team.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T23:50:14Z)
• The Value of Information in Human-AI Decision-making [23.353778024330165]
  We contribute a decision-theoretic framework for characterizing the value of information.<n>We present a novel explanation technique that adapts SHAP explanations to highlight human-complementing information.<n>We show that our measure of complementary information can be used to identify which AI model will best complement human decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T04:50:42Z)
• Let people fail! Exploring the influence of explainable virtual and robotic agents in learning-by-doing tasks [45.23431596135002]
  This study compares the effects of classic vs. partner-aware explanations on human behavior and performance during a learning-by-doing task. Results indicated that partner-aware explanations influenced participants differently based on the type of artificial agents involved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T13:22:04Z)
• Unexploited Information Value in Human-AI Collaboration [23.353778024330165]
  How to improve performance of a human-AI team is often not clear without knowing what particular information and strategies each agent employs.<n>We propose a model based in statistical decision theory to analyze human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T01:34:45Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Pangu-Agent: A Fine-Tunable Generalist Agent with Structured Reasoning [50.47568731994238]
  Key method for creating Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents is Reinforcement Learning (RL) This paper presents a general framework model for integrating and learning structured reasoning into AI agents' policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T17:57:57Z)
• Interactive Autonomous Navigation with Internal State Inference and Interactivity Estimation [58.21683603243387]
  We propose three auxiliary tasks with relational-temporal reasoning and integrate them into the standard Deep Learning framework. These auxiliary tasks provide additional supervision signals to infer the behavior patterns other interactive agents. Our approach achieves robust and state-of-the-art performance in terms of standard evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T18:57:42Z)
• ProAgent: Building Proactive Cooperative Agents with Large Language Models [89.53040828210945]
  ProAgent is a novel framework that harnesses large language models to create proactive agents. ProAgent can analyze the present state, and infer the intentions of teammates from observations. ProAgent exhibits a high degree of modularity and interpretability, making it easily integrated into various coordination scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T10:36:56Z)
• Assessing Human Interaction in Virtual Reality With Continually Learning Prediction Agents Based on Reinforcement Learning Algorithms: A Pilot Study [6.076137037890219]
  We investigate how the interaction between a human and a continually learning prediction agent develops as the agent develops competency. We develop a virtual reality environment and a time-based prediction task wherein learned predictions from a reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm augment human predictions. Our findings suggest that human trust of the system may be influenced by early interactions with the agent, and that trust in turn affects strategic behaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-14T22:46:44Z)

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.