mirror of
https://github.com/zoo-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-11-02 17:38:34 +00:00
61 lines
2.3 KiB
TeX
61 lines
2.3 KiB
TeX
\section{AI-Assisted Identification}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:ai}
|
|
% ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Integration with TaxoNet}
|
|
|
|
ZooPlatform integrates the TaxoNet few-shot species identification
|
|
system (ZOO-CLS-2026). When a user submits a photograph:
|
|
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item TaxoNet extracts visual features and matches against species
|
|
prototypes restricted by geographic and temporal priors.
|
|
\item Top-5 suggestions with calibrated confidence scores are
|
|
presented to the user.
|
|
\item The user selects or overrides the AI suggestion.
|
|
\item The observation is submitted with both AI and human
|
|
identifications recorded.
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{AI Anchoring Mitigation}
|
|
|
|
AI suggestions can anchor observer decisions, reducing identification
|
|
diversity \citep{terry2020think}. We mitigate this through:
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item \textbf{Delayed display}: AI suggestions are shown only after
|
|
the user enters their own initial identification (or explicitly
|
|
requests help).
|
|
\item \textbf{Confidence calibration}: Low-confidence suggestions
|
|
($<$0.5) are displayed as ``uncertain---please verify'' rather than
|
|
as firm identifications.
|
|
\item \textbf{Disagreement incentives}: Users earn bonus ZooRep for
|
|
providing correct identifications that disagree with AI suggestions,
|
|
incentivizing independent judgment.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Identification Accuracy}
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\caption{Species identification accuracy by method.}
|
|
\label{tab:id_accuracy}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
|
|
\toprule
|
|
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Accuracy} & \textbf{Coverage} \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
Human only (unassisted) & 78.4\% & 100\% \\
|
|
AI only (TaxoNet) & 84.7\% & 94.2\% \\
|
|
Human + AI (assisted) & 91.3\% & 100\% \\
|
|
Human + AI + community & 96.1\% & 100\% \\
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
The combination of AI assistance and community validation achieves
|
|
96.1\% identification accuracy, exceeding either humans or AI alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
% ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|