Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.07669

Evaluating human-AI workflows for field research in viticulture

Niko Carvajal Janke·Daoyuan Jin·Shivranjani Baruah·Nicholas Gunner·Jacob Maus·Yu Jiang·Kaitlin M. Gold
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We assessed the value of two live human-AI interactions in a precision disease control project in California vineyards. The project tested whether 2021-2024 commercial scouting records and remote-sensing measurements across 140 hectares could support 2025 red-leaf symptom forecasting for prioritized scouting and virus testing. In Workflow 1, Aleks v1, a multi-agent research system, developed forecasting models with iterative human refinement. We applied Aleks's 2024 vine-scale model to updated 2025 predictors and evaluated red-leaf forecasts against independent 2025 scouting. In retrospective simulations surveying 45% of all vine positions, adding model-informed row prioritization to adaptive scouting increased the encountered proportion of newly recorded red-leaf observations from 85.8% to 94.1%. Within-block scouting comparisons suggested the model mainly improved scouting allocation among blocks. Despite unreliable internal 2024 performance estimates from synthetic oversampling before train/test splitting, Aleks developed an informative vine-scale model in 145 minutes, increasing throughput and answering our research questions. In Workflow 2, we assessed whether higher model-score vines had more frequent virus detection, and whether Aleks could infer this sampling goal from a general prompt with data and literature. Aleks's plan prioritized balanced vineyard and model score coverage, while our plan prioritized field efficiency and high-model-score oversampling. Aleks's and our plans yielded 41/50 (82%) and 97/100 (97%) sampled vines. Aleks's plan omitted instructions for replacing missing vines, limiting implementation and operational value. Five of 137 sampled vines tested positive for grapevine red blotch virus (model score ROC AUC 0.735). These findings support assessing AI interactions by how well they advance field research objectives under live, project-specific constraints.

Explore related subjects

cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Niko Carvajal Janke, Daoyuan Jin, Shivranjani Baruah, Nicholas Gunner, Jacob Maus, Yu Jiang, Kaitlin M. Gold. 2026-10-06. Evaluating human-AI workflows for field research in viticulture. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.07669

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Harnessing the Power of AI in Qualitative Research: Role Assignment, Engagement, and User Perceptions of AI-Generated Follow-Up Questions in Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews highly rely on the quality of follow-up questions, yet interviewers' knowledge and skills may limit their depth and potentially affect outcomes. While many studies have shown the usefulness of large language models (LLMs) for qualitative analysis, their possibility in the data collection process remains underexplored. We adopt an AI-driven "Wizard-of-Oz" setup to investigate how real-time LLM support in generating follow-up questions shapes semi-structured interviews. Through a study with 17 participants, we examine the value of LLM-generated follow-up questions, the evolving division of roles, relationships, collaborative behaviors, and responsibilities between interviewers and AI. Our findings (1) provide empirical evidence of the strengths and limitations of AI-generated follow-up questions (AGQs); (2) introduce a Human-AI collaboration framework in this interview context; and (3) propose human-centered design guidelines for AI-assisted interviewing. We position LLMs as complements, not replacements, to human judgment, and highlight pathways for integrating AI into qualitative data collection.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Linking Behaviour and Perception to Evaluate Meaningful Human Control over Partially Automated Driving

Partial driving automation creates a tension: drivers remain legally responsible while being less active in control. Meaningful human control (MHC), a normative framework that can potentially address this tension, proposes that automated systems are designed to track relevant human reasons and that humans should at all times remain in control and be responsible. However, empirical methods for evaluating whether systems are under MHC remain underdeveloped. In this driving simulator study, we investigated the extent to which 24 drivers experienced MHC when interacting with partially automated driving systems under two modes - haptic shared control and traded control. During overtaking manoeuvres on a two-lane, two-way road with fully automated longitudinal control and partially automated lateral control, drivers' actions were necessary to prevent crashes due to silent automation failures. Starting from hypotheses derived from the properties of systems under MHC, we used a mixed-methods approach that links behavioural metrics, subjective post-trial ratings, and qualitative feedback to assess drivers' perception of responsibility and control. A confirmatory analysis indicated a negative correlation between the perception of the automated vehicle understanding the driver and conflict in steering torques. Qualitative feedback revealed that mismatches in intentions between the driver and automation, lack of safety, and resistance to driver inputs reduced perceived MHC, while subtle haptic guidance aligned with driver intent had a positive effect. Thus, future designs should prioritise effortless driver interventions, transparent communication of automation intent through haptic, visual or auditory cues, and clear authority allocation to strengthen meaningful human control in partially automated driving.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

An LLM-Native Psychometric Instrument Reveals a Self-Report--Behavior Gap Across 25 Models

Do large language models' (LLMs') answers to self-report questionnaires predict how they behave? Prior work finds they do not, but it uses human personality inventories, so the gap could reflect borrowed human constructs rather than LLM self-report itself. We test this with a self-report instrument built from LLM-specific behaviors (e.g., over-refusal, unsolicited disclaimers) whose structure is derived bottom-up. Administering 300 items 30 times to 25 LLMs from 17 developers yields five replicable, reliable factors (Tucker $ϕ\geq .957$, $α\geq .930$). We compare these self-reports with 2,500 open-ended behavioral samples rated by 151 humans and an LLM-judge ensemble. Humans and judges agree about model behavior ($\bar{r} = .51$), but self-report barely tracks human ratings ($\bar{r} = .09$, 95% CI $[-.07, .18]$) or rater-free text measures, and correcting for criterion unreliability leaves four of five factors near zero. Verbosity is the partial exception ($r = .40$, 71% of its reliability ceiling). On Responsiveness, self-report tracks LLM judges more than humans ($r = .53$ vs. $.18$; Steiger $p = .04$), and controlling for length and formatting does not remove this: agreement between LLM judges and LLM self-report is weak evidence that either tracks human judgment.

cs.HC↗