paperbot · PL 论文追踪

全部论文 待读 收藏

P2 How Analysts Use AI in High-Stakes Crime Linkage: An Industrial Study

分析师如何在高风险犯罪关联中使用 AI:一项工业研究
FSE Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering2026匹配度 1/10 · 论文聚焦犯罪关联分析场景中分析师如何选择性信任 AI 预测与使用解释,属于 HCI/高利害 AI 决策支持的工业评估,与用户核心方向(静态分析、Agentic 程序、浮点程序分析、贝叶斯程序分析及 LLM 与 PL 的交叉)没有直接关联;仅在“工业界落地评估”这一点上有非常宽泛的共性。引用 0 inbox
Jessica Woodhams, Amy Burrell, Wanyin Li, Fahim Ahmed, Matthew Tonkin, Jan Lemeire, Arkady Konovalov, Steven Frisson, Mark Webb, Sarah Galambos, Vesna Nowack, Dalal Alrajeh
crossref: 2026-09-12dblp: 2026-09-12arxiv: 2026-09-12

AI 速览

一句话:通过混合方法实地评估犯罪关联 AI 决策支持工具,揭示分析师对 AI 预测的选择性信任与解释使用方式。

犯罪关联分析用于识别可能由同一人实施的一系列犯罪。实践中,分析师需在大型数据库中人工寻找行为与情境联系,耗时、认知负荷高,并可能反复接触令人不适的材料。为支持该工作,研究者与英国执法机构共同开发了 AI 决策支持工具。本文报告其工业评估:采用直接观察、眼动追踪、鼠标追踪与问卷的混合方法,考察分析师如何与 AI 预测及解释互动。结果显示,分析师选择性地使用 AI 预测,并频繁用非 AI 行为证据验证,体现部分信任与对既有实践的依赖;他们还关注模型特征,并提出改进解释呈现与工作流整合的机会。研究强调,高风险 AI 决策支持需整合解释与传统方法,并凸显现场评估的重要性。

问题
犯罪关联分析依赖分析师人工在大规模犯罪数据库中寻找行为与情境联系,过程耗时、认知负荷高,且可能反复接触令人不适的材料。
方法
研究者与英国执法机构共同开发 AI 决策支持工具,并采用直接观察、眼动追踪、鼠标追踪和问卷的混合方法可用性研究,考察分析师如何采纳 AI 预测及其解释特征。
评估
工业现场评估显示,分析师选择性使用 AI 预测并频繁用非 AI 行为证据验证,表现为部分信任;他们关注模型特征并认可其价值,同时提出改进解释呈现与工作流整合的建议。
原文摘要(Abstract)

Crime linkage analysis is used in many countries to identify series of offences that may have been committed by the same individual. In practice, specialist analysts manually search for behavioural and situational connections across large crime databases, an effort that is time-consuming, cognitively demanding, and can involve repeated exposure to disturbing material. To support this work, an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled decision-support tool was co-developed with a UK law enforcement agency to assist analysts in identifying likely crime linkages. This paper reports an industrial evaluation of the crime-linkage tool. We conducted a mixed-methods usability study combining direct observation, eye-tracking, mouse-tracking, and surveys to examine how analysts engage with AI predictions and with the model features presented as explanations. Our findings show that analysts used the AI predictions selectively and frequently validated them against behavioural (non-AI) evidence, reflecting partial trust and an ongoing reliance on established analytical practices. We also found that analysts attended to the presented model features and valued their availability, while identifying opportunities to improve how explanations are presented and integrated into the workflow. Overall, our results highlight the need for AI-enabled decision-support tools to better integrate explanations and traditional analytical methods, and demonstrate the importance of in-situ evaluation for engineering usable and trustworthy AI in high-stakes settings.

链接与引用

DOI 原文 · arXiv · PDF(开放获取) · DBLP

BibTeX
@inproceedings{abs-2607-08274,
  title = {How Analysts Use AI in High-Stakes Crime Linkage: An Industrial Study},
  author = {Jessica Woodhams and Amy Burrell and Wanyin Li and Fahim Ahmed and Matthew Tonkin and Jan Lemeire and Arkady Konovalov and Steven Frisson and Mark Webb and Sarah Galambos and Vesna Nowack and Dalal Alrajeh},
  booktitle = {FSE},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.1145/3803437.3805253}
}