A risk-based model for human-artificial intelligence conflict resolution in process systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conflicts stemming from discrepancies between human and artificial intelligence (AI) in observation, interpretation, and action have gained attention. Recent publications highlight the seriousness of the concern stemming from conflict and models to identify and assess the conflict risk. No work has been reported on systematically studying how to resolve human and artificial intelligence conflicts. This paper presents a novel approach to model the resolution strategies of human-AI conflicts. This approach reinterprets the conventional human conflict resolution mechanisms within AI. The study proposes a unique mathematical model to quantify conflict risks and delineate effective resolution strategies to minimize conflict risk. The proposed approach and mode are applied to control a two-phase separator system, a major component of a processing facility. The proposed approach promotes the development of robust AI systems with enhanced real-time responses to human inputs. It provides a platform to foster human-AI collaborative engagement and a mechanism of intelligence augmentation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it