In this paper we introduce a visualization methodology to aid a human analyst in classifying adversity modes that impact lidar scan matching. Our methodology is intended for offline rather than real-time analysis. The method generates a vector-field plot that characterizes local discrepancies between a pair of registered point clouds. The vector field plot reveals patterns that would be difficult for the analyst to extract from raw point-cloud data. After introducing our methodology, we apply the process to two proof-of-concept examples: one a simulation study and the other a field experiment. For both data sets, a human analyst was able to reason about a series of adversity mechanisms and iteratively remove those mechanisms from the raw data, to help focus attention on progressively smaller discrepancies.

Interviews are a widely used technique in eliciting requirements to gather stakeholder needs, preferences, and expectations for a software system. Effective interviewing requires skilled interviewers to formulate appropriate interview questions in real time while facing multiple challenges, including lack of familiarity with the domain, excessive cognitive load, and information overload that hinders how humans process stakeholders' speech. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have exhibited state-of-the-art performance in multiple natural language processing tasks, including text summarization and entailment. To support interviewers, we investigate the application of GPT-4o to generate follow-up interview questions during requirements elicitation by building on a framework of common interviewer mistake types. In addition, we describe methods to generate questions based on interviewee speech. We report a controlled experiment to evaluate LLM-generated and human-authored questions with minimal guidance, and a second controlled experiment to evaluate the LLM-generated questions when generation is guided by interviewer mistake types. Our findings demonstrate that, for both experiments, the LLM-generated questions are no worse than the human-authored questions with respect to clarity, relevancy, and informativeness. In addition, LLM-generated questions outperform human-authored questions when guided by common mistakes types. This highlights the potential of using LLMs to help interviewers improve the quality and ease of requirements elicitation interviews in real time.

Security Operations Centers (SOCs) face growing challenges in managing cybersecurity threats due to an overwhelming volume of alerts, a shortage of skilled analysts, and poorly integrated tools. Human-AI collaboration offers a promising path to augment the capabilities of SOC analysts while reducing their cognitive overload. To this end, we introduce an AI-driven human-machine co-teaming paradigm that leverages large language models (LLMs) to enhance threat intelligence, alert triage, and incident response workflows. We present a vision in which LLM-based AI agents learn from human analysts the tacit knowledge embedded in SOC operations, enabling the AI agents to improve their performance on SOC tasks through this co-teaming. We invite SOCs to collaborate with us to further develop this process and uncover replicable patterns where human-AI co-teaming yields measurable improvements in SOC productivity.

Requirements Engineering (RE) is essential for developing complex and regulated software projects. Given the challenges in transforming stakeholder inputs into consistent software designs, Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) provides a systematic approach to handling free-form data. However, traditional QDA methods are time-consuming and heavily reliant on manual effort. In this paper, we explore the use of Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4, Mistral, and LLaMA-2, to improve QDA tasks in RE. Our study evaluates LLMs' performance in inductive (zero-shot) and deductive (one-shot, few-shot) annotation tasks, revealing that GPT-4 achieves substantial agreement with human analysts in deductive settings, with Cohen's Kappa scores exceeding 0.7, while zero-shot performance remains limited. Detailed, context-rich prompts significantly improve annotation accuracy and consistency, particularly in deductive scenarios, and GPT-4 demonstrates high reliability across repeated runs. These findings highlight the potential of LLMs to support QDA in RE by reducing manual effort while maintaining annotation quality. The structured labels automatically provide traceability of requirements and can be directly utilized as classes in domain models, facilitating systematic software design.

We investigate whether an LLM can successfully perform financial statement analysis in a way similar to a professional human analyst. We provide standardized and anonymous financial statements to GPT4 and instruct the model to analyze them to determine the direction of future earnings. Even without any narrative or industry-specific information, the LLM outperforms financial analysts in its ability to predict earnings changes. The LLM exhibits a relative advantage over human analysts in situations when the analysts tend to struggle. Furthermore, we find that the prediction accuracy of the LLM is on par with the performance of a narrowly trained state-of-the-art ML model. LLM prediction does not stem from its training memory. Instead, we find that the LLM generates useful narrative insights about a company's future performance. Lastly, our trading strategies based on GPT's predictions yield a higher Sharpe ratio and alphas than strategies based on other models. Taken together, our results suggest that LLMs may take a central role in decision-making.

The advent of AI driven large language models (LLMs) have stirred discussions about their role in qualitative research. Some view these as tools to enrich human understanding, while others perceive them as threats to the core values of the discipline. This study aimed to compare and contrast the comprehension capabilities of humans and LLMs. We conducted an experiment with small sample of Alexa app reviews, initially classified by a human analyst. LLMs were then asked to classify these reviews and provide the reasoning behind each classification. We compared the results with human classification and reasoning. The research indicated a significant alignment between human and ChatGPT 3.5 classifications in one third of cases, and a slightly lower alignment with GPT4 in over a quarter of cases. The two AI models showed a higher alignment, observed in more than half of the instances. However, a consensus across all three methods was seen only in about one fifth of the classifications. In the comparison of human and LLMs reasoning, it appears that human analysts lean heavily on their individual experiences. As expected, LLMs, on the other hand, base their reasoning on the specific word choices found in app reviews and the functional components of the app itself. Our results highlight the potential for effective human LLM collaboration, suggesting a synergistic rather than competitive relationship. Researchers must continuously evaluate LLMs role in their work, thereby fostering a future where AI and humans jointly enrich qualitative research.

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT-3, have demonstrated remarkable natural language processing and generation capabilities and have been applied to a variety tasks, such as source code generation. This paper explores the potential of integrating LLMs in the hazard analysis for safety-critical systems, a process which we refer to as co-hazard analysis (CoHA). In CoHA, a human analyst interacts with an LLM via a context-aware chat session and uses the responses to support elicitation of possible hazard causes. In this experiment, we explore CoHA with three increasingly complex versions of a simple system, using Open AI's ChatGPT service. The quality of ChatGPT's responses were systematically assessed to determine the feasibility of CoHA given the current state of LLM technology. The results suggest that LLMs may be useful for supporting human analysts performing hazard analysis.

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to revolutionize industries across the board, it's no surprise that it's making waves in the world of cybersecurity. With the emergence of powerful language models like ChatGPT, the potential for AI to disrupt the industry is enormous. The rise of AI-powered cybersecurity has already seen a significant reduction in response times to cyber threats and malware attacks. By leveraging the power of machine learning, ChatGPT can analyze vast amounts of data in real-time, identifying patterns and anomalies that may go unnoticed by human analysts. But ChatGPT's potential extends far beyond simply detecting and responding to threats. The technology's ability to adapt and learn means it can evolve alongside emerging threats, providing a more proactive defense against future attacks.

Commercial AI solutions provide analysts and managers with data-driven business intelligence for a wide range of decisions, such as demand forecasting and pricing. However, human analysts may have their own insights and experiences about the decision-making that is at odds with the algorithmic recommendation. In view of such a conflict, we provide a general analytical framework to study the augmentation of algorithmic decisions with human knowledge: the analyst uses the knowledge to set a guardrail by which the algorithmic decision is clipped if the algorithmic output is out of bound, and seems unreasonable. We study the conditions under which the augmentation is beneficial relative to the raw algorithmic decision. We show that when the algorithmic decision is asymptotically optimal with large data, the non-data-driven human guardrail usually provides no benefit. However, we point out three common pitfalls of the algorithmic decision: (1) lack of domain knowledge, such as the market competition, (2) model misspecification, and (3) data contamination. In these cases, even with sufficient data, the augmentation from human knowledge can still improve the performance of the algorithmic decision.

Artificial intelligence is drastically changing the future of finance. Financial institutions spent over $10.1 billion on AI last year. One of the many ways that AI is being leveraged in finance is by helping improve the experience of investors. Modern investors enjoy a much smoother trading experience than their predecessors. Thanks to the invention of the internet, everything from conducting trades to downloading comprehensive reports can be completed almost instantly.