No abstract

In many human performance tasks, researchers assess performance by measuring both accuracy and response time. A number of theoretical and practical approaches have been proposed to obtain a single performance value that combines these measures, with varying degrees of success. In this report, we examine data from a common paradigm used in applied human factors assessment: a go/no-go vigilance task (Smith et al., 2019). We examined whether 12 different measures of performance were sensitive to the vigilance decrement induced by the design, and also examined how the different measures were correlated. Results suggest that most combined measures were slight improvements over accuracy or response time alone, with the most sensitive and representative result coming from the Linear Ballistic Accumulator model. Practical lessons for applying these measures are discussed.

With the recent deployment of the latest generation of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) mode, consumers are using semi-autonomous vehicles in both highway and residential driving for the first time. As a result, drivers are facing complex and unanticipated situations with an unproven technology, which is a central challenge for cooperative cognition. One way to support cooperative cognition in such situations is to inform and educate the user about potential limitations. Because these limitations are not always easily discovered, users have turned to the internet and social media to document their experiences, seek answers to questions they have, provide advice on features to others, and assist other drivers with less FSD experience. In this paper, we explore a novel approach to supporting cooperative cognition: Using social media posts can help characterize the limitations of the automation in order to get information about the limitations of the system and explanations and workarounds for how to deal with these limitations. Ultimately, our goal is to determine the kinds of problems being reported via social media that might be useful in helping users anticipate and develop a better mental model of an AI system that they rely on. To do so, we examine a corpus of social media posts about FSD problems to identify (1) the typical problems reported, (2) the kinds of explanations or answers provided by users, and (3) the feasibility of using such user-generated information to provide training and assistance for new drivers. The results reveal a number of limitations of the FSD system (e.g., lane-keeping and phantom braking) that may be anticipated by drivers, enabling them to predict and avoid the problems, thus allowing better mental models of the system and supporting cooperative cognition of the human-AI system in more situations.

Explainable AI represents an increasingly important category of systems that attempt to support human understanding and trust in machine intelligence and automation. Typical systems rely on algorithms to help understand underlying information about decisions and establish justified trust and reliance. Researchers have proposed using goodness criteria to measure the quality of explanations as a formative evaluation of an XAI system, but these criteria have not been systematically investigated in the literature. To explore this, we present a novel collaborative explanation system (CXAI) and propose several goodness criteria to evaluate the quality of its explanations. Results suggest that the explanations provided by this system are typically correct, informative, written in understandable ways, and focus on explanation of larger scale data patterns than are typically generated by algorithmic XAI systems. Implications for how these criteria may be applied to other XAI systems are discussed.

No abstract