Many real-world tasks involve a mixed-initiative setup, wherein humans and AI systems collaboratively perform a task. While significant work has been conducted towards enabling humans to specify, through language, exactly how an agent should complete a task (i.e., low-level specification), prior work lacks on interpreting the high-level strategic intent of the human commanders. Parsing strategic intent from language will allow autonomous systems to independently operate according to the user's plan without frequent guidance or instruction. In this paper, we build a computational interface capable of translating unstructured language strategies into actionable intent in the form of goals and constraints. Leveraging a game environment, we collect a dataset of over 1000 examples, mapping language strategies to the corresponding goals and constraints, and show that our model, trained on this dataset, significantly outperforms human interpreters in inferring strategic intent (i.e., goals and constraints) from language (p < 0.05). Furthermore, we show that our model (125M parameters) significantly outperforms ChatGPT for this task (p < 0.05) in a low-data setting.

Artificial Intelligence is being employed by humans to collaboratively solve complicated tasks for search and rescue, manufacturing, etc. Efficient teamwork can be achieved by understanding user preferences and recommending different strategies for solving the particular task to humans. Prior work has focused on personalization of recommendation systems for relatively well-understood tasks in the context of e-commerce or social networks. In this paper, we seek to understand the important factors to consider while designing user-centric strategy recommendation systems for decision-making. We conducted a human-subjects experiment (n=60) for measuring the preferences of users with different personality types towards different strategy recommendation systems. We conducted our experiment across four types of strategy recommendation modalities that have been established in prior work: (1) Single strategy recommendation, (2) Multiple similar recommendations, (3) Multiple diverse recommendations, (4) All possible strategies recommendations. While these strategy recommendation schemes have been explored independently in prior work, our study is novel in that we employ all of them simultaneously and in the context of strategy recommendations, to provide us an in-depth overview of the perception of different strategy recommendation systems. We found that certain personality traits, such as conscientiousness, notably impact the preference towards a particular type of system (p < 0.01). Finally, we report an interesting relationship between usability, alignment and perceived intelligence wherein greater perceived alignment of recommendations with one's own preferences leads to higher perceived intelligence (p < 0.01) and higher usability (p < 0.01).