Identifying Factors That Impact Levels of Automation in Autonomous Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need to support complex human and machine collaboration has increased because of recent advances in the use of software and artificial intelligence approaches across various application domains. Building applications with more autonomy has grown dramatically as modern system development capability has significantly improved. However, understanding how to assign duties between humans and machines still needs improvement, and there is a need for better approaches to apportion these tasks. Current methods do not make adaptive automation easy, as task assignments during system operation need to take knowledge about the optimal level of automation (LOA) into account during the collaboration. There is currently a lack of explicit knowledge regarding the factors that influence the variability of human-system interaction and the correct LOA. Additionally, models have not been provided to represent the adaptive LOA variation based on these parameters and their interactions and interdependencies. The study, presented in this paper, based on an extensive literature review, identifies and classifies the factors that affect the degree of automation in autonomous systems. It also proposes a model based on feature diagrams representing the factors and their relationships with LOAs. With the support of two illustrative examples, we demonstrate how to apply these factors and how they relate to one another. This work advances research in the design of autonomous systems by offering an adaptive automation approach that can suggest levels of automation to facilitate human-computer interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".