analiza aiqbench
This research formalizes the critical challenge of governing autonomy transitions in human-AI collaboration by introducing a transparent, auditable metric called the Handover Readiness Score (HRS). The proposed framework combines multi-signal analysis with hysteresis-based policies to safely escalate or revert AI control based on operator readiness, trust stability, and performance metrics. By addressing the slow erosion of readiness that single-threshold safety guards miss, this work provides a necessary governance foundation for adaptive automation in software engineering and manufacturing.
The Handover Problem: Governing Autonomy Transitions in Human-AI Collaboration
arXiv:2610.10352v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-machine systems rarely operate at a fixed level of AI autonomy. As operators and AI systems collaborate over time, control must shift: the AI can take on more responsibility when collaboration is stable, maintain its current role when evidence is ambiguous, or return control to the human when conditions deteriorate. Existing work on adaptive automation, supervisory control, trust in automation, and deskilling explains parts of this problem, but provides no auditable, multi-signal criterion for governing when autonomy should change across multi-cycle workflows. We formalise this challenge as the Handover Problem: deciding, at each operational cycle, whether to escalate, maintain, or revert AI autonomy while keeping the process reversible, recoverable, and auditable. We introduce the Handover Readiness Score (HRS), a transparent composite measure that integrates four signal dimensions: operator readiness, human-AI trust, learning stability, and operational performance. It is combined with a hysteresis-based transition policy that requires sustained positive evidence before increasing autonomy but reverts promptly when conditions worsen. Across software engineering and manufacturing domains, the HRS and hard safety guards address complementary failure regimes: guards enforce immediate corrective action when a single indicator breaches a critical threshold, while the HRS detects the slow, multi-signal erosion of operator readiness that no individual guard can observe. The framework establishes autonomy handover as a governance problem requiring explicit, composite, and auditable criteria. This provides a conceptual and formal foundation that adaptive automation research has not previously provided.
Abstract:Human-machine systems rarely operate at a fixed level of AI autonomy. As operators and AI systems collaborate over time, control must shift: the AI can take on more responsibility when collaboration is stable, maintain its current role when evidence is ambiguous, or return control to the human when conditions deteriorate. Existing work on adaptive automation, supervisory control, trust in automation, and deskilling explains parts of this problem, but provides no auditable, multi-signal criterion for governing when autonomy should change across multi-cycle workflows. We formalise this challenge as the Handover Problem: deciding, at each operational cycle, whether to escalate, maintain, or revert AI autonomy while keeping the process reversible, recoverable, and auditable. We introduce the Handover Readiness Score (HRS), a transparent composite measure that integrates four signal dimensions: operator readiness, human-AI trust, learning stability, and operational performance. It is combined with a hysteresis-based transition policy that requires sustained positive evidence before increasing autonomy but reverts promptly when conditions worsen. Across software engineering and manufacturing domains, the HRS and hard safety guards address complementary failure regimes: guards enforce immediate corrective action when a single indicator breaches a critical threshold, while the HRS detects the slow, multi-signal erosion of operator readiness that no individual guard can observe. The framework establishes autonomy handover as a governance problem requiring explicit, composite, and auditable criteria. This provides a conceptual and formal foundation that adaptive automation research has not previously provided.
10 pages, 5 figures, 8 tables. Submitted to IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2610.10352 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.10352v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10352 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 344 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Hegseth AutoWarCom: who builds it, what the money buys, and why its hardest problem after Minab is the record, not the model
livetradingnews.com · 2 oct. 2026

AI and Quantum Computing Briefing
livetradingnews.com · 4 aug. 2026

Netskope (NTSK) Q2 2027 Earnings Call Transcript
fool.com · 10 sept. 2026

I Did This Without Your Knowledge
LessWrong · 17 oct. 2026