Designing High-Impact Experiments for Human–Autonomy / AI Teaming
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 potential to create autonomous teammates that work alongside humans has increased with continued advancements in AI and autonomous technology. Research in human–AI teams and human–autonomy teams (HATs) has seen an influx of new and diverse researchers from human factors, computing, and teamwork, yielding one of the most interdisciplinary domains in modern research. However, the HAT domain’s interdisciplinary nature can make the design of research, especially experiments, more complex, and new researchers may not fully grasp the numerous decisions required to perform high-impact HAT research. To aid researchers in designing high-impact experiments, this article itemizes four initial decision points needed to form a HAT experiment: deciding on a research question, deciding on a team composition, deciding on a research environment, and deciding on data collection. For each decision point, this article discusses these decisions in practice, providing related works to guide researchers toward different options available to them. These decision points are then synthesized through actionable recommendations to guide future researchers. The contribution of this article will increase the impact and knowledge of HAT experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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