ArticulatePro: A Comparative Study on a Proactive and Non-Proactive Assistant in a Climate Data Exploration Task
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a comparative study on the effectiveness of a proactive and non-proactive digital assistant in a climate data exploration task.
- The study examined how the two types of assistants affected user performance, engagement, and perceptions.
- The findings provide insights into the potential benefits and drawbacks of proactive AI assistants in data exploration scenarios.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at the differences between two types of digital assistants:
- Proactive assistant: This assistant takes the initiative to provide relevant information and suggestions to the user, without being explicitly asked.
- Non-proactive assistant: This assistant only responds when the user directly asks for help or information.
The researchers wanted to see how these two approaches affect people's ability to explore and understand climate data. They had participants use each type of assistant while working on a data exploration task, and then measured things like:
- How well the participants were able to complete the task
- How engaged and satisfied they felt with the process
- Their overall impressions of the assistant
The goal was to understand the potential benefits and drawbacks of having a more proactive AI assistant, compared to a more passive one, when it comes to helping people make sense of complex data.
Technical Explanation
The paper describes a user study that compared the performance and perceptions of participants using a [object Object] versus a non-proactive assistant in a [object Object] task.
The proactive assistant was designed to [object Object] to the user, while the non-proactive assistant only responded when directly asked.
Participants were randomly assigned to use one of the two assistants and were asked to explore a climate dataset, answering questions and generating insights. The researchers measured task performance, user engagement, and subjective perceptions to assess the comparative effectiveness of the two [object Object] approaches.
The results showed that the proactive assistant led to better task performance and higher user engagement compared to the non-proactive version. However, participants also reported feeling more frustrated and less in control when using the proactive assistant.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the tradeoffs between proactive and non-proactive AI assistants in the context of data exploration. The findings suggest that a proactive approach can be beneficial for improving user productivity and engagement, but it also raises concerns about user autonomy and perceived control.
One limitation of the study is that it focused on a specific data exploration task in the climate domain. The generalizability of the results to other types of data analysis or decision-making scenarios is unclear and would require further research.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific design choices and underlying [object Object] capabilities of the two assistants. More details on the technical implementation and the pragmatic factors that shaped the assistants' behaviors could provide additional insights.
Overall, this study serves as a valuable starting point for understanding the trade-offs of proactive AI assistants in [object Object] contexts. Further research is needed to refine the design of such assistants and explore their applications in a wider range of domains.
Conclusion
The paper presents a comparative study on the use of proactive and non-proactive digital assistants in a climate data exploration task. The findings suggest that a proactive assistant can enhance user performance and engagement, but may also lead to higher levels of user frustration and a perceived loss of control.
These results highlight the need for careful design and consideration of the appropriate level of proactivity in AI-based assistants, balancing the potential benefits of increased productivity with the need to maintain user autonomy and [object Object] capabilities. As conversational AI systems become more prevalent, understanding these trade-offs will be crucial for developing [object Object] digital assistants that can effectively support users in complex data analysis and decision-making tasks.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
New!ArticulatePro: A Comparative Study on a Proactive and Non-Proactive Assistant in a Climate Data Exploration Task
Roderick Tabalba, Christopher J. Lee, Giorgio Tran, Nurit Kirshenbaum, Jason Leigh
Recent advances in Natural Language Interfaces (NLIs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed our approach to NLP tasks, allowing us to focus more on a Pragmatics-based approach. This shift enables more natural interactions between humans and voice assistants, which have been challenging to achieve. Pragmatics describes how users often talk out of turn, interrupt each other, or provide relevant information without being explicitly asked (maxim of quantity). To explore this, we developed a digital assistant that constantly listens to conversations and proactively generates relevant visualizations during data exploration tasks. In a within-subject study, participants interacted with both proactive and non-proactive versions of a voice assistant while exploring the Hawaii Climate Data Portal (HCDP). Results suggest that the proactive assistant enhanced user engagement and facilitated quicker insights. Our study highlights the potential of Pragmatic, proactive AI in NLIs and identifies key challenges in its implementation, offering insights for future research.
Read more9/18/2024
0
Towards Human-centered Proactive Conversational Agents
Yang Deng, Lizi Liao, Zhonghua Zheng, Grace Hui Yang, Tat-Seng Chua
Recent research on proactive conversational agents (PCAs) mainly focuses on improving the system's capabilities in anticipating and planning action sequences to accomplish tasks and achieve goals before users articulate their requests. This perspectives paper highlights the importance of moving towards building human-centered PCAs that emphasize human needs and expectations, and that considers ethical and social implications of these agents, rather than solely focusing on technological capabilities. The distinction between a proactive and a reactive system lies in the proactive system's initiative-taking nature. Without thoughtful design, proactive systems risk being perceived as intrusive by human users. We address the issue by establishing a new taxonomy concerning three key dimensions of human-centered PCAs, namely Intelligence, Adaptivity, and Civility. We discuss potential research opportunities and challenges based on this new taxonomy upon the five stages of PCA system construction. This perspectives paper lays a foundation for the emerging area of conversational information retrieval research and paves the way towards advancing human-centered proactive conversational systems.
Read more4/22/2024
🏅
0
ProCIS: A Benchmark for Proactive Retrieval in Conversations
Chris Samarinas, Hamed Zamani
The field of conversational information seeking, which is rapidly gaining interest in both academia and industry, is changing how we interact with search engines through natural language interactions. Existing datasets and methods are mostly evaluating reactive conversational information seeking systems that solely provide response to every query from the user. We identify a gap in building and evaluating proactive conversational information seeking systems that can monitor a multi-party human conversation and proactively engage in the conversation at an opportune moment by retrieving useful resources and suggestions. In this paper, we introduce a large-scale dataset for proactive document retrieval that consists of over 2.8 million conversations. We conduct crowdsourcing experiments to obtain high-quality and relatively complete relevance judgments through depth-k pooling. We also collect annotations related to the parts of the conversation that are related to each document, enabling us to evaluate proactive retrieval systems. We introduce normalized proactive discounted cumulative gain (npDCG) for evaluating these systems, and further provide benchmark results for a wide range of models, including a novel model we developed for this task. We believe that the developed dataset, called ProCIS, paves the path towards developing proactive conversational information seeking systems.
Read more5/13/2024
0
Ask-before-Plan: Proactive Language Agents for Real-World Planning
Xuan Zhang, Yang Deng, Zifeng Ren, See-Kiong Ng, Tat-Seng Chua
The evolution of large language models (LLMs) has enhanced the planning capabilities of language agents in diverse real-world scenarios. Despite these advancements, the potential of LLM-powered agents to comprehend ambiguous user instructions for reasoning and decision-making is still under exploration. In this work, we introduce a new task, Proactive Agent Planning, which requires language agents to predict clarification needs based on user-agent conversation and agent-environment interaction, invoke external tools to collect valid information, and generate a plan to fulfill the user's demands. To study this practical problem, we establish a new benchmark dataset, Ask-before-Plan. To tackle the deficiency of LLMs in proactive planning, we propose a novel multi-agent framework, Clarification-Execution-Planning (texttt{CEP}), which consists of three agents specialized in clarification, execution, and planning. We introduce the trajectory tuning scheme for the clarification agent and static execution agent, as well as the memory recollection mechanism for the dynamic execution agent. Extensive evaluations and comprehensive analyses conducted on the Ask-before-Plan dataset validate the effectiveness of our proposed framework.
Read more6/19/2024