As AI continues to advance, human-AI teams are inevitable. However, progress in AI is routinely measured in isolation, without a human in the loop. It is crucial to benchmark progress in AI, not just in isolation, but also in terms of how it translates to helping humans perform certain tasks, i.e., the performance of human-AI teams. In this work, we design a cooperative game - GuessWhich - to measure human-AI team performance in the specific context of the AI being a visual conversational agent. GuessWhich involves live interaction between the human and the AI. The AI, which we call ALICE, is provided an image which is unseen by the human. Following a brief description of the image, the human questions ALICE about this secret image to identify it from a fixed pool of images. We measure performance of the human-ALICE team by the number of guesses it takes the human to correctly identify the secret image after a fixed number of dialog rounds with ALICE. We compare performance of the human-ALICE teams for two versions of ALICE. Our human studies suggest a counterintuitive trend - that while AI literature shows that one version outperforms the other when paired with an AI questioner bot, we find that this improvement in AI-AI performance does not translate to improved human-AI performance. This suggests a mismatch between benchmarking of AI in isolation and in the context of human-AI teams.
Human Computation Games. Human computation games have been shown to be time- and cost-efficient, reliable, intrinsically engaging for participants @cite_23 @cite_29 , and hence an effective method to collect data annotations. There is a long line of work on designing such Games with a Purpose (GWAP) @cite_11 for data labeling purposes across various domains including images @cite_28 @cite_20 @cite_7 @cite_27 , audio @cite_17 @cite_18 , language @cite_15 @cite_1 , movies @cite_24 . While such games have traditionally focused on human-human collaboration, we extend these ideas to human-AI teams. Rather than collecting labeled data, our game is designed to measure the effectiveness of the AI in the context of human-AI teams.
@cite_18 @cite_7 @cite_28 @cite_29 @cite_1 @cite_17 @cite_24 @cite_27 @cite_23 @cite_15 @cite_20 @cite_11
2077805339 2152729775 1600300810 2119249434
Human computation can address complex computational problems by tapping into large resource pools for relatively little cost. Two prominent human-computation techniques - games with a purpose (GWAP) and microtask crowdsourcing - can help resolve semantic-technology-related tasks, including knowledge representation, ontology alignment, and semantic annotation. To evaluate which approach is better with respect to costs and benefits, the authors employ categorization challenges in Wikipedia to ultimately create a large, general-purpose ontology. They first use the OntoPronto GWAP, then replicate its problem-solving setting in Amazon Mechanical Turk, using a similar task-design structure, evaluation mechanisms, and input data. Developing computer-controlled groups to engage in combat, control the use of limited resources, and create units and buildings in real-time strategy (RTS) games is a novel application in game AI. However, tightly controlled online commercial game pose challenges to researchers interested in observing player activities, constructing player strategy models, and developing practical AI technology in them. Instead of setting up new programming environments or building a large amount of agentpsilas decision rules by playerpsilas experience for conducting real-time AI research, the authors use replays of the commercial RTS game StarCraft to evaluate human player behaviors and to construct an intelligent system to learn human-like decisions and behaviors. A case-based reasoning approach was applied for the purpose of training our system to learn and predict player strategies. Our analysis indicates that the proposed system is capable of learning and predicting individual player strategies, and that players provide evidence of their personal characteristics through their building construction order. Motivation has been one of the central challenges of human computation. A promising approach is the integration of human computation tasks into digital games. Different human computation games have been successfully deployed, but tend to provide relatively narrow gaming experiences. This survey discusses various approaches of digital games for human computation and aims to explore the ties to signal processing and possible generalizations. How do we build multiagent algorithms for agent interactions with human adversaries? Stackelberg games are natural models for many important applications that involve human interaction, such as oligopolistic markets and security domains. In Stackelberg games, one player, the leader, commits to a strategy and the follower makes their decision with knowledge of the leader's commitment. Existing algorithms for Stackelberg games efficiently find optimal solutions (leader strategy), but they critically assume that the follower plays optimally. Unfortunately, in real-world applications, agents face human followers (adversaries) who --- because of their bounded rationality and limited observation of the leader strategy --- may deviate from their expected optimal response. Not taking into account these likely deviations when dealing with human adversaries can cause an unacceptable degradation in the leader's reward, particularly in security applications where these algorithms have seen real-world deployment. To address this crucial problem, this paper introduces three new mixed-integer linear programs (MILPs) for Stackelberg games to consider human adversaries, incorporating: (i) novel anchoring theories on human perception of probability distributions and (ii) robustness approaches for MILPs to address human imprecision. Since these new approaches consider human adversaries, traditional proofs of correctness or optimality are insufficient; instead, it is necessary to rely on empirical validation. To that end, this paper considers two settings based on real deployed security systems, and compares 6 different approaches (three new with three previous approaches), in 4 different observability conditions, involving 98 human subjects playing 1360 games in total. The final conclusion was that a model which incorporates both the ideas of robustness and anchoring achieves statistically significant better rewards and also maintains equivalent or faster solution speeds compared to existing approaches.