认知代理在人类自主网络防御团队协作中的实验评估

Yinuo Du , Baptiste Prébot , Tyler Malloy , Fei Fang , Cleotilde Gonzalez
{"title":"认知代理在人类自主网络防御团队协作中的实验评估","authors":"Yinuo Du ,&nbsp;Baptiste Prébot ,&nbsp;Tyler Malloy ,&nbsp;Fei Fang ,&nbsp;Cleotilde Gonzalez","doi":"10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Autonomous agents are becoming increasingly prevalent and capable of collaborating with humans on interdependent tasks as teammates. There is increasing recognition that human-like agents might be natural human collaborators. However, there has been limited work on designing agents according to the principles of human cognition or in empirically testing their teamwork effectiveness. In this study, we introduce the Team Defense Game (TDG), a novel experimental platform for investigating human-autonomy teaming in cyber defense scenarios. We design an agent that relies on episodic memory to determine its actions (<em>Cognitive agent</em>) and compare its effectiveness with two types of autonomous agents: one that relies on heuristic reasoning (<em>Heuristic agent</em>) and one that behaves randomly (<em>Random agent</em>). These agents are compared in a human-autonomy team (HAT) performing a cyber-protection task in the TDG. We systematically evaluate how autonomous teammates’ abilities and competence impact the team’s interaction and outcomes. The results revealed that teams with Cognitive agents are the most effective partners, followed by teams with Heuristic and Random agents. Evaluation of collaborative team process metrics suggests that the cognitive agent is more adaptive to individual play styles of human teammates, but it is also inconsistent and less predictable than the Heuristic agent. Competent agents (Cognitive and Heuristic agents) require less human effort but might cause over-reliance. A post-experiment questionnaire showed that competent agents are rated more trustworthy and cooperative than Random agents. We also found that human participants’ subjective ratings correlate with their team performance, and humans tend to take the credit or responsibility for the team. Our work advances HAT research by providing empirical evidence of how the design of different autonomous agents (cognitive, heuristic, and random) affect team performance and dynamics in cybersecurity contexts. We propose that autonomous agents for HATs should possess both competence and human-like cognition while also ensuring predictable behavior or clear explanations to maintain human trust. Additionally, they should proactively seek human input to enhance teamwork effectiveness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100324,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experimental evaluation of cognitive agents for collaboration in human-autonomy cyber defense teams\",\"authors\":\"Yinuo Du ,&nbsp;Baptiste Prébot ,&nbsp;Tyler Malloy ,&nbsp;Fei Fang ,&nbsp;Cleotilde Gonzalez\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Autonomous agents are becoming increasingly prevalent and capable of collaborating with humans on interdependent tasks as teammates. There is increasing recognition that human-like agents might be natural human collaborators. However, there has been limited work on designing agents according to the principles of human cognition or in empirically testing their teamwork effectiveness. In this study, we introduce the Team Defense Game (TDG), a novel experimental platform for investigating human-autonomy teaming in cyber defense scenarios. We design an agent that relies on episodic memory to determine its actions (<em>Cognitive agent</em>) and compare its effectiveness with two types of autonomous agents: one that relies on heuristic reasoning (<em>Heuristic agent</em>) and one that behaves randomly (<em>Random agent</em>). These agents are compared in a human-autonomy team (HAT) performing a cyber-protection task in the TDG. We systematically evaluate how autonomous teammates’ abilities and competence impact the team’s interaction and outcomes. The results revealed that teams with Cognitive agents are the most effective partners, followed by teams with Heuristic and Random agents. Evaluation of collaborative team process metrics suggests that the cognitive agent is more adaptive to individual play styles of human teammates, but it is also inconsistent and less predictable than the Heuristic agent. Competent agents (Cognitive and Heuristic agents) require less human effort but might cause over-reliance. A post-experiment questionnaire showed that competent agents are rated more trustworthy and cooperative than Random agents. We also found that human participants’ subjective ratings correlate with their team performance, and humans tend to take the credit or responsibility for the team. Our work advances HAT research by providing empirical evidence of how the design of different autonomous agents (cognitive, heuristic, and random) affect team performance and dynamics in cybersecurity contexts. We propose that autonomous agents for HATs should possess both competence and human-like cognition while also ensuring predictable behavior or clear explanations to maintain human trust. Additionally, they should proactively seek human input to enhance teamwork effectiveness.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100148\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882125000325\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882125000325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自主代理正变得越来越普遍,并且能够以队友的身份与人类合作完成相互依赖的任务。越来越多的人认识到,类人的代理人可能是自然的人类合作者。然而,根据人类认知原则设计代理或对其团队合作有效性进行实证测试的工作有限。在这项研究中,我们引入了团队防御游戏(TDG),这是一个研究网络防御场景中人类自主团队的新实验平台。我们设计了一个依赖情景记忆来决定其行为的智能体(认知智能体),并将其与两种类型的自主智能体进行了比较:一种依赖启发式推理(启发式智能体),另一种依赖随机行为(随机智能体)。在TDG中执行网络保护任务的人类自主团队(HAT)中对这些代理进行了比较。我们系统地评估自主团队成员的能力和能力如何影响团队的互动和结果。结果显示,使用认知代理的团队是最有效的合作伙伴,其次是启发式代理和随机代理。对协作团队过程指标的评估表明,认知代理更能适应人类队友的个人游戏风格,但它也不一致,而且比启发式代理更不可预测。有能力的代理(认知代理和启发式代理)需要较少的人力,但可能导致过度依赖。实验后问卷调查显示,有能力的智能体比随机智能体更值得信任和合作。我们还发现,人类参与者的主观评分与他们的团队表现相关,人类倾向于为团队邀功或承担责任。我们的工作通过提供不同自主代理(认知、启发式和随机)的设计如何影响网络安全背景下的团队绩效和动态的经验证据,推进了HAT研究。我们建议HATs的自主代理应该具备能力和类似人类的认知,同时确保可预测的行为或明确的解释,以维持人类的信任。此外,他们应该主动寻求人力投入,以提高团队效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Experimental evaluation of cognitive agents for collaboration in human-autonomy cyber defense teams
Autonomous agents are becoming increasingly prevalent and capable of collaborating with humans on interdependent tasks as teammates. There is increasing recognition that human-like agents might be natural human collaborators. However, there has been limited work on designing agents according to the principles of human cognition or in empirically testing their teamwork effectiveness. In this study, we introduce the Team Defense Game (TDG), a novel experimental platform for investigating human-autonomy teaming in cyber defense scenarios. We design an agent that relies on episodic memory to determine its actions (Cognitive agent) and compare its effectiveness with two types of autonomous agents: one that relies on heuristic reasoning (Heuristic agent) and one that behaves randomly (Random agent). These agents are compared in a human-autonomy team (HAT) performing a cyber-protection task in the TDG. We systematically evaluate how autonomous teammates’ abilities and competence impact the team’s interaction and outcomes. The results revealed that teams with Cognitive agents are the most effective partners, followed by teams with Heuristic and Random agents. Evaluation of collaborative team process metrics suggests that the cognitive agent is more adaptive to individual play styles of human teammates, but it is also inconsistent and less predictable than the Heuristic agent. Competent agents (Cognitive and Heuristic agents) require less human effort but might cause over-reliance. A post-experiment questionnaire showed that competent agents are rated more trustworthy and cooperative than Random agents. We also found that human participants’ subjective ratings correlate with their team performance, and humans tend to take the credit or responsibility for the team. Our work advances HAT research by providing empirical evidence of how the design of different autonomous agents (cognitive, heuristic, and random) affect team performance and dynamics in cybersecurity contexts. We propose that autonomous agents for HATs should possess both competence and human-like cognition while also ensuring predictable behavior or clear explanations to maintain human trust. Additionally, they should proactively seek human input to enhance teamwork effectiveness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信