Left shifting analysis of Human-Autonomous Team interactions to analyse risks of autonomy in high-stakes AI systems

Ben Larwood; Oliver J. Sutton; Callum Cockburn

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.03519

Left shifting analysis of Human-Autonomous Team interactions to analyse risks of autonomy in high-stakes AI systems

Ben Larwood·Oliver J. Sutton·Callum Cockburn

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Developing high-stakes autonomous systems that include Artificial Intelligence (AI) components is complex; the consequences of errors can be catastrophic, yet it is challenging to plan for all operational cases. In stressful scenarios for the human operator, such as short decision-making timescales, the risk of failures is exacerbated. A lack of understanding of AI failure modes obstructs this and so blocks the robust implementation of applications of AI in smart systems. This prevents early risk identification, leading to increased time, risk and cost of projects. A key tenet of Systems Engineering and acquisition engineering is centred around a "left-shift" in test and evaluation activities to earlier in the system lifecycle, to allow for "accelerated delivery of [systems] that work". We argue it is therefore essential that this shift includes the analysis of AI failure cases as part of the design stages of the system life cycle. Our proposed framework enables the early characterisation of risks emerging from human-autonomy teaming (HAT) in operational contexts. The cornerstone of this is a new analysis of AI failure modes, built on the seminal modelling of human-autonomy teams laid out by LaMonica et al., 2022. Using the analysis of the interactions between human and autonomous systems and exploring the failure modes within each aspect, our approach provides a way to systematically identify human-AI interactions risks across the operational domain of the system of interest. The understanding of the emergent behaviour enables increased robustness of the system, for which the analysis should be undertaken over the whole scope of its operational design domain. This approach is illustrated through an example use case for an AI assistant supporting a Command & Control (C2) System.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC cs.SY eess.SY

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ben Larwood, Oliver J. Sutton, Callum Cockburn. 2025-12-03. Left shifting analysis of Human-Autonomous Team interactions to analyse risks of autonomy in high-stakes AI systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03519

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC↗