惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

B
Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
Jina AI
Jina AI
博客园 - 叶小钗
J
Java Code Geeks
博客园 - 聂微东
博客园 - 司徒正美
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
V
V2EX
美团技术团队
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence
雷峰网
雷峰网
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
GbyAI
GbyAI
罗磊的独立博客
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
aimingoo的专栏
aimingoo的专栏
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
The Cloudflare Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
N
Netflix TechBlog - Medium
小众软件
小众软件

cs.HC updates on arXiv.org

A Framework for Measuring Appropriate Reliance on Set-Valued AI Advice DeliChess: A Multi-party Dialogue Dataset for Deliberation in Chess Puzzle Solving From Explanation to Diagnosis: Next Generation Interactive Video Coach with Misstep Awareness SocialCoach: Personalized Social Skill Learning with RL-based Agentic Tutoring and Practice Formalizing all indexed mathematics as a benchmark for general reasoning, with the example of implementing dilatations of categories Face versus Body Tracking for Human-Robot Interaction: An Egocentric Dataset From Prompt to Service: An SLM-Based Agent Orchestration Gateway for AI-Driven Virtual Worlds What LLMs Must Forget to Teach Effectively: A DIY Approach to Premodern Japanese Language Pedagogy Quantitative Movement Testing: Measuring Patient Movements from a Single Smartphone Video Vision-Language Models Suppress Female Representations Under Ambiguous Input The New Social Image: How AI Competency and AI Proactivity Influence Self- and Peer-Perceptions in the Workplace TUX: Measuring Human--AI Tacit Understanding LLUMI: Improving LLM Writing Assistance for Mental Health Support with Online Community Feedback VideoFDB: Evaluating Full-Duplex Vision-Speech Capabilities in Conversational Agents Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMs Inform, Coach, Relate, Listen: Auditing LLM Caregiving Support Roles How Coding Agents Fail Their Users: A Large-Scale Analysis of Developer-Agent Misalignment in 20,574 Real-World Sessions MetaRanker: Human-in-the-loop Active Ranking for Metalens Image Quality Analyzing Persona Effects in Generated Explanations from Multimodal LLM Agents in Urban Perception Granuscore: A Reference-Free Measure of Granularity for Text Analysis and Question Answering The Timing Dependencies of Trust: Speed, Accuracy, and cBCI Neuro-Decoupling in Human-AI Teams Bayesian Distributional Models of Executive Functioning Visual Matters: Connecting Aesthetic Appeal and Production Quality of Photos, Infographics and Data Visualizations to Credibility of Social Media Posts Data-driven Head Motion Generation through Natural Gaze-Head Coordination Agreement Metrics for LLM-as-Judge Evaluation: What to Report and Why Perceptually Lossless Tactile Texture Synthesis with Compact Spectral Envelope Models MambaGaze: Bidirectional Mamba with Explicit Missing Data Modeling for Cognitive Load Assessment from Eye-Gaze Tracking Data CogAdapt: Transferring Clinical ECG Foundation Models to Wearable Cognitive Load Assessment via Lead Adaptation Augmented Analytics and Decision Quality: The Role of Trust among Non-Technical BI Users Faster Completion, Less Learning: Generative AI Reduced Study Time on Math Problems and the Knowledge They Build
Beyond object identification: How train drivers evaluate ...
Romy Müller, Judith Schmidt · 2024-11-08 · via cs.HC updates on arXiv.org

When trains collide with obstacles, the consequences are often severe. To assess how artificial intelligence might contribute to avoiding collisions, we need to understand how train drivers do it. What aspects of a situation do they consider when evaluating the risk of collision? In the present study, we assumed that train drivers do not only identify potential obstacles but interpret what they see in order to anticipate how the situation might unfold. However, to date it is unclear how exactly this is accomplished. Therefore, we assessed which cues train drivers use and what inferences they make. To this end, image-based expert interviews were conducted with 33 train drivers. Participants saw images with potential obstacles, rated the risk of collision, and explained their evaluation. Moreover, they were asked how the situation would need to change to decrease or increase collision risk. From their verbal reports, we extracted concepts about the potential obstacles, contexts, or consequences, and assigned these concepts to various categories (e.g., people's identity, location, movement, action, physical features, and mental states). The results revealed that especially for people, train drivers reason about their actions and mental states, and draw relations between concepts to make further inferences. These inferences systematically differ between situations. Our findings emphasise the need to understand train drivers' risk evaluation processes when aiming to enhance the safety of both human and automatic train operation.