| --- |
| language: en |
| license: apache-2.0 |
| task_categories: |
| - tabular-classification |
| - text-classification |
| - reinforcement-learning |
| tags: |
| - mixed-initiative |
| - decision-theory |
| - calibration |
| - attention |
| - interruption-management |
| - hci |
| - scheduling |
| - synthetic-data |
| pretty_name: "LookOut-inspired Mixed-Initiative Traces (Synthetic)" |
| size_categories: |
| - 10K<n<100K |
| --- |
| |
| # LookOut-inspired Mixed-Initiative Traces (Synthetic) |
|
|
| This dataset provides **synthetic interaction traces** for studying **mixed-initiative decision making** under uncertainty, with **attention-sensitive interruption costs** and **decision-theoretic thresholds** inspired by ideas in [Eric Horvitz’s CHI’99 *LookOut* work](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/302979.303030). |
|
|
| **Source code:** |
| https://github.com/DBbun/Mixed-Initiative-Lookout-CHI99 |
|
|
| **Developed by DBbun LLC — January 2026.** |
|
|
| **What this is (in one sentence):** |
| A reproducible, decision-theoretic benchmark where each episode logs (i) calibrated uncertainty, (ii) attention state, (iii) the agent’s chosen mixed-initiative action, (iv) outcomes, and (v) analytic threshold explanations. |
|
|
| > This dataset and generator are inspired by publicly described concepts in the literature. |
| > They are **not** affiliated with Microsoft Research or Eric Horvitz and do **not** include any original LookOut code or data. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Files in this dataset |
|
|
| - **`mixed_initiative_traces.csv`** |
| Main tabular dataset. Each row corresponds to one mixed-initiative decision episode. |
|
|
| - **`mixed_initiative_traces.jsonl`** |
| Episode-level JSON Lines version with nested structure (context, beliefs, utilities, thresholds, outcomes). |
|
|
| - **`mixed_initiative_traces.quality_report.txt`** |
| Calibration metrics (AUROC, ECE), monotonicity checks, baseline policy comparisons, and diagnostics. |
| |
| - **`mixed_initiative_traces.config.json`** |
| Full generator configuration including random seed, utility matrices, attention model parameters, and constraints. |
| |
| --- |
| |
| ## Motivation |
| |
| Mixed-initiative assistants must decide whether to act immediately, ask for clarification, scope a safer action, or remain silent. These decisions depend on uncertainty, user attention and readiness, urgency, and asymmetric costs of errors. |
| |
| This dataset enables benchmarking of decision policies, calibrated uncertainty models, interpretability via analytic thresholds, and attention-aware action selection. |
| |
| --- |
| |
| ## Concept-to-data mapping (Figures 1–7) |
| |
| This dataset provides data-driven analogs to the CHI’99 LookOut concepts: |
| |
| - **Fig 1 — Manual invocation** |
| Manual inspection and explicit invocation |
| (`manual_hover_inspect`, `manual_click_invoke`) |
| |
| - **Fig 2 — Explicit social agent** |
| Dialog confirmation and refinement |
| (`dialog_confirmed`, `refine_after_accept`) |
| |
| - **Fig 3 — Automated scoping** |
| Risk-reducing partial actions |
| (`agent_action = scope`) |
|
|
| - **Fig 4 — Action vs no-action threshold** |
| Expected utility comparison |
|
|
| - **Fig 5 — Context-dependent shifts** |
| Threshold changes under attention and urgency |
|
|
| - **Fig 6 — Dialog as a second option** |
| Three-way expected utility comparison |
|
|
| - **Fig 7 — Dwell time vs message length** |
| Sigmoid attention model |
| (`message_length_bytes`, `dwell_time_sec`) |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Data generation overview |
|
|
| Each episode is generated as follows: |
|
|
| 1. Sample latent evidence and compute calibrated posterior `p_true` |
| 2. Apply belief distortion to obtain `p_model` |
| 3. Sample urgency and compute attention/readiness |
| 4. Compute expected utilities and analytic thresholds |
| 5. Select action via expected-utility maximization |
| 6. Sample user response and realized utility |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Recommended tasks |
|
|
| 1. **Calibration and uncertainty learning** |
| 2. **Policy learning / imitation learning** |
| 3. **Counterfactual decision analysis** |
| 4. **Interpretability and explanation benchmarking** |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Schema (detailed column descriptions) |
|
|
| Each row represents a **single mixed-initiative decision episode**. |
|
|
| ### Identity |
|
|
| - **`episode_id`** |
| Unique identifier for the episode. |
| |
| - **`user_id`** |
| Synthetic user identifier used to simulate repeated interactions. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ### Ground truth and uncertainty |
|
|
| - **`true_goal`** *(binary)* |
| Whether the suggested action was actually appropriate. |
| |
| - **`p_true`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Calibrated posterior probability of correctness derived from latent evidence. |
|
|
| - **`p_model`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Agent’s reported belief after miscalibration. |
| |
| - **`evidence_score`** *(float)* |
| Latent evidence signal used to derive `p_true`. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ### Attention and readiness |
|
|
| - **`message_length_bytes`** *(int)* |
| Size of the candidate interruption message. |
|
|
| - **`dwell_time_sec`** *(float)* |
| Simulated dwell time before interruption. |
|
|
| - **`time_since_focus_sec`** *(float)* |
| Time elapsed since last user engagement. |
| |
| - **`not_ready_score`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Aggregate interruption cost estimate. |
| |
| --- |
| |
| ### Context |
| |
| - **`urgency_0_1`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Task urgency affecting the cost of inaction. |
| |
| --- |
| |
| ### Mixed-initiative decision |
| |
| - **`lookout_modality`** *(categorical)* |
| Interaction mode: `manual_invocation`, `explicit_agent`, or `auto_scoping`. |
|
|
| - **`agent_action`** *(categorical)* |
| Chosen action: `no_action`, `action`, `dialog`, or `scope`. |
| |
| --- |
| |
| ### Manual invocation signals |
| |
| - **`manual_hover_inspect`** *(binary)* |
| User inspected suggestion. |
|
|
| - **`manual_click_invoke`** *(binary)* |
| User explicitly invoked suggestion. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ### Dialog and refinement |
|
|
| - **`dialog_confirmed`** *(binary)* |
| User accepted dialog suggestion. |
| |
| - **`refine_after_accept`** *(binary)* |
| User requested refinement after acceptance. |
| |
| --- |
| |
| ### Outcomes and utilities |
| |
| - **`user_response`** *(categorical)* |
| `accept`, `reject`, or `ignore`. |
|
|
| - **`realized_utility`** *(float)* |
| Utility actually realized after outcome sampling. |
| |
| - **`u_baseline_no_action`** *(float)* |
| Utility that would have occurred under no action. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ### Expected utilities |
|
|
| These fields store the **expected utility values computed at decision time**, before sampling the user response. |
| They are the quantities used by the policy to choose an action. |
|
|
| - **`eu_no_action`** *(float)* |
| Expected utility of taking **no action**, balancing avoided interruption cost against delay or missed-opportunity cost. |
|
|
| - **`eu_action`** *(float)* |
| Expected utility of taking the **primary action immediately**, combining expected benefit, error penalty, and interruption cost. |
| |
| - **`eu_dialog`** *(float)* |
| Expected utility of initiating **dialog or clarification**, trading lower risk for a chance to improve correctness. |
|
|
| - **`eu_scope`** *(float)* |
| Expected utility of taking a **scoped or partial action**, providing reduced downside risk with partial benefit. |
| |
| --- |
| |
| ### Analytic decision thresholds |
| |
| Each threshold represents the **minimum belief probability (`p_model`)** at which one action dominates another in **expected utility**. |
| All thresholds are computed **analytically** from the utility model. |
|
|
| - **`p_star_noaction_action`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Threshold above which **action** is preferable to **no action**. |
| |
| - **`p_star_noaction_dialog`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Threshold above which **dialog** is preferable to **no action**. |
|
|
| - **`p_star_dialog_action`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Threshold above which **action** is preferable to **dialog**. |
| |
| - **`p_star_noaction_scope`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Threshold above which **scope** is preferable to **no action**. |
|
|
| - **`p_star_scope_action`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Threshold above which **action** is preferable to **scope**. |
| |
| - **`p_star_scope_dialog`** *(float, 0–1)* |
| Threshold above which **dialog** is preferable to **scope**. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Quality report |
|
|
| The file `mixed_initiative_traces.quality_report.txt` documents calibration results, sensitivity checks, and policy comparisons. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Reproducibility |
|
|
| The dataset can be exactly regenerated using the source code and |
| `mixed_initiative_traces.config.json`. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## License |
|
|
| Apache-2.0 |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Citation |
|
|
| If you use this dataset, please cite: |
|
|
| **LookOut-inspired Mixed-Initiative Traces (Synthetic)** |
| DBbun LLC, January 2026. |
|
|