Engineering topics

Baweja, Jessica A.

Publications and source records attributed to Baweja, Jessica A..

3 records

DOE OSTI2024

An Ethics-Based Review of Generative Artificial Intelligence: Assuring Responsible Use (Version 1.0)

The rapid expansion of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has generated excitement regarding its potential benefits and concern over its ethical implications. Governments, corporations, and standards organizations have described ethical principles to direct GenAI's development and use; however, practical guidance for implementing these principles is limited. Addressing this gap is critical, especially considering the array of risks associated with GenAI, such as legal liabilities, privacy concerns, security threats, and potential misuse. Robust policies and procedures are critical to support responsible deployment of GenAI. This report examines Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)’s approach to promoting responsible GenAI use. Proposed initiatives include developing policies based on ethical principles, creating a governance process to review projects relative to those principles, and implementing onboarding processes for training staff. The governance framework described in this report adapts the structure and principles of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), traditionally used in human subjects research, for GenAI ethical review, providing oversight. Ethical principles guiding responsible GenAI usage include transparency and accountability, privacy, fairness, safety, security, and validity and reliability. To operationalize these principles, we propose forming a GenAI Assurance Council (GAC) that mirrors the IRB's structure. The GAC will evaluate GenAI projects across privacy, accountability, transparency, safety, security, fairness, and validity dimensions. Complementing policy and governance is AI literacy training to support staff understanding of GenAI's ethical implications. An initial training effort for AI Incubator Chat—a GenAI tool deployed at PNNL—showed promising results, underscoring the importance of clear guidelines and user accountability. Collaborative efforts and the dissemination of best practices are also discussed. The proposed GAC model and AI literacy training provide a blueprint for establishing ethical GenAI use and governance, offering practical tools to bridge the gap between ethical principles and real-world applications. The responsible integration of GenAI at PNNL entails a multifaceted approach involving policy development, ethical governance, and AI literacy training. The positive initial feedback and collaborative opportunities position PNNL to lead by example in GenAI's responsible use, reflecting a proactive stance in addressing the ethical, legal, and societal challenges associated with this emerging technology. PNNL's systematic and ethical approach to GenAI offers a model for other institutions to emulate, promoting safe and responsible technological advancements in the AI domain.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Estimating the Contributions to Human Error Probability from the Convolution of the Distribution of Time Available and Time Required

As part of their duties, Human Reliability Analysis must often evaluate if crews in nuclear power plants (NPPs) can complete tasks associated with a human-failure event within time limits. For example, the time required in NPP scenarios is determined by systematic and structured walkthroughs, feasibility studies, recorded times from training exercises, and interviews with experienced operators and experts. Typically, a point estimate is derived for the estimate (mean, maximum, or 95th percentile of time required). Using point-estimate values can mask the risk associated with variability among crews, plant conditions and set-up, environmental conditions, and other impact factors under which these actions are executed. While point estimates for time required and time available have served the industry well, without considering the uncertainty they could lead to biased understanding about the risk. The Integrated Human Event Analysis System - General Methodology (IDHEAS-G) model (developed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC) for human error probability calculates human error probability by summing two probabilities: insufficient time and cognitive error. As such, the model takes a more holistic approach by considering the full distributions for time required and time available to calculate the human error probability because the time available to complete the task is insufficient. In this study, we expand on the work of the NRC and discuss methods for estimating these time considerations. For example, for the time required, the impact of Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) on the distribution was divided into impacts that are aleatory in nature, such as crew-to-crew variability, and those that are epistemic (i.e., the PIFs). Starting with the factors that introduce aleatory uncertainty, a first-order distribution was developed from a large set of time required (i.e., NPP task completion times) data for the range of operator actions that occur in the NPP control room under simulated accident conditions. The first-order distribution can then be adjusted to account for epistemic uncertainty using research associated with the impact of applicable PIFs on the time required. We also develop guidance for analysts to address the probability distributions for the time available. The guidance we developed on how to estimate time required and time available distributions is based on the identification of pertinent research and data, data analyses, and expert knowledge elicitation.

human error probability, human performance, time e↗

DOE OSTI2023

“Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda”: Conceptualizing the Differences in Trust Between Human-Human Teaming and Human-Machine Teaming

Intelligent decision support systems (IDSSs) are machine teammates designed to facilitate better human decision-making in high-consequence domains such as health care, power grid operations, and fraud detection. IDSSs identify patterns in datasets and provide intelligent decision-making recommendations to human teammates. However, previous research indicates that humans often trust IDSS recommendations less than the recommendations from their human teammates, even when the machine teammate is more accurate. To conceptualize why trust differs, we review the literature surrounding trust, error, and predictability. Then, we compile and compare participant trust ratings and decision-making in an abridged systematic review of previous studies manipulating teammate type, error rate, and error type. Finally, we conduct a content analysis of participants’ qualitative responses to trust queries from a survey on generative language models. Results suggest that humans may trust IDSS teammates less than other human teammates because of differences in (1) interaction complexity, (2) blame attribution, and (3) swift trust. We conclude that human factors practitioners should collaborate with data scientists and domain experts to build and maintain trust in IDSSs by anthropomorphizing algorithms, matching mental models, and considering individual differences.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗