In teams composed of humans, we use trust in others to make decisions, such as what to do next, who to help and who to ask for help. When a team member is artificial, they should also be able to assess whether a human teammate is trustworthy for a certain task. We see trustworthiness as the combination of (1) whether someone will do a task and (2) whether they can do it. With building beliefs in trustworthiness as an ultimate goal, we explore which internal factors (krypta) of the human may play a role (e.g., ability, benevolence, and integrity) in determining trustworthiness, according to existing literature. Furthermore, we investigate which observable metrics (manifesta) an agent may take into account as cues for the human teammate’s krypta in an online 2D grid-world experiment (n = 54). Results suggest that cues of ability, benevolence and integrity influence trustworthiness. However, we observed that trustworthiness is mainly influenced by human’s playing strategy and cost-benefit analysis, which deserves further investigation. This is a first step towards building informed beliefs of human trustworthiness in human-AI teamwork.@en

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly prevalent in our daily lives, setting specific requirements for responsible development and deployment: The AI should be explainable and inclusive. Despite substantial research and development investment in explainable AI, there is a lack of effort into making AI explainable and inclusive to people with cognitive disabilities as well. In this paper, we present the first steps towards this research topic. We argue that three main questions guide this research, namely: 1) How explainable should a system be?; 2) What level of understanding can the user reach, and what is the right type of explanation to help them reach this level?; and 3) How can we implement an AI system that can generate the necessary explanations? We present the current state of the art in research on these three topics, the current open questions and the next steps. Finally, we present the challenges specific to bringing these three research topics together, in order to eventually be able to answer the question of how to make AI systems explainable also to people with cognitive disabilities.@en

Agent-based training systems can enhance people's social skills. The effective development of these systems needs a comprehensive architecture that outlines their components and relationships. Such an architecture can pinpoint improvement areas and future outlooks. This paper presents ARTES: a general architecture illustrating how components of agent-based social training systems work together. We studied existing systems and architectures for training and tutoring to design ARTES and identify its essential components and interaction characteristics. ARTES comprises two core components: the agent simulation of social situations, and educational elements to provide guided learning. We link ARTES's crucial components to four primary learning theories (behaviourism, cognitivism, social cognitive theory, and constructivism) to illustrate the role of agent simulation and tutoring elements in establishing desired learning outcomes. Furthermore, we map ARTES's components against eight architectures, 43 systems and three tools to indicate the components' relevance, completeness, generalisation, and deployment potential across contexts. In addition to ARTES, the paper also contributes by identifying future improvements and research directions, such as the agent's thinking, tutoring methods, knowledge transfer, and ethical implications. We believe ARTES can help bridge the gap between virtual human simulations and impactful educational learning, offering training system developers desirable features like understandability and adaptability.@en

Introduction: Humans and robots are increasingly collaborating on complex tasks such as firefighting. As robots are becoming more autonomous, collaboration in human-robot teams should be combined with meaningful human control. Variable autonomy approaches can ensure meaningful human control over robots by satisfying accountability, responsibility, and transparency. To verify whether variable autonomy approaches truly ensure meaningful human control, the concept should be operationalized to allow its measurement. So far, designers of variable autonomy approaches lack metrics to systematically address meaningful human control.

Methods: Therefore, this qualitative focus group (n = 5 experts) explored quantitative operationalizations of meaningful human control during dynamic task allocation using variable autonomy in human-robot teams for firefighting. This variable autonomy approach requires dynamic allocation of moral decisions to humans and non-moral decisions to robots, using robot identification of moral sensitivity. We analyzed the data of the focus group using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: Results highlight the usefulness of quantifying the traceability requirement of meaningful human control, and how situation awareness and performance can be used to objectively measure aspects of the traceability requirement. Moreover, results emphasize that team and robot outcomes can be used to verify meaningful human control but that identifying reasons underlying these outcomes determines the level of meaningful human control.

Discussion: Based on our results, we propose an evaluation method that can verify if dynamic task allocation using variable autonomy in human-robot teams for firefighting ensures meaningful human control over the robot. This method involves subjectively and objectively quantifying traceability using human responses during and after simulations of the collaboration. In addition, the method involves semi-structured interviews after the simulation to identify reasons underlying outcomes and suggestions to improve the variable autonomy approach.@en

Child helplines offer a safe and private space for children to share their thoughts and feelings with volunteers. However, training these volunteers to help can be both expensive and time-consuming. In this demo, we present Lilobot, a conversational agent designed to train volunteers for child helplines. Lilobot’s reasoning is based on the Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) model, which simulates, for example, a bullied child who contacts the helpline through text. Users engage with Lilobot in a role-play format, taking on the volunteer’s role. Through this system, volunteers can practice applying the Five Phase Model, a conversational strategy helplines use. The training tool includes a trainer interface for monitoring and modifying Lilobot’s interactions. Trainers can also create new conversational scenarios through an authoring tool. An initial evaluation led to enhancements in Lilobot’s knowledge base and intent recognition, addressing the main issues encountered by participants. The components used to implement the system were Java Spring for the BDI model and the authoring tool, Rasa for Natural Language Understanding, PostgreSQL for the database, and Vue.js for the front-end. This tool aims to provide volunteers with consistent, interactive training, enhancing their counselling skills in a controlled environment.

@en

Appropriate trust is an important component of the interaction between people and AI systems, in that "inappropriate"trust can cause disuse, misuse, or abuse of AI. To foster appropriate trust in AI, we need to understand how AI systems can elicit appropriate levels of trust from their users. Out of the aspects that influence trust, this article focuses on the effect of showing integrity. In particular, this article presents a study of how different integrity-based explanations made by an AI agent affect the appropriateness of trust of a human in that agent. To explore this, (1) we provide a formal definition to measure appropriate trust, (2) present a between-subject user study with 160 participants who collaborated with an AI agent in such a task. In the study, the AI agent assisted its human partner in estimating calories on a food plate by expressing its integrity through explanations focusing on either honesty, transparency, or fairness. Our results show that (a) an agent who displays its integrity by being explicit about potential biases in data or algorithms achieved appropriate trust more often compared to being honest about capability or transparent about the decision-making process, and (b) subjective trust builds up and recovers better with honesty-like integrity explanations. Our results contribute to the design of agent-based AI systems that guide humans to appropriately trust them, a formal method to measure appropriate trust, and how to support humans in calibrating their trust in AI.

@en

This paper explores the potential of conversational intermediary AI (CIAI) between patients and healthcare providers, focusing specifically on promoting healthier lifestyles for Type 2 diabetes. CIAI aims to address the constraint of limited healthcare provider time by acting as an intermediary in-between infrequent consultations. CIAI enables healthcare providers to understand patients better and offer personalized support. Through an exploratory focus group with healthcare domain experts, we gather insights into CIAI’s envisioned in diabetes care. Our findings highlight the potential benefits of CIAI in diabetes care.@en

Appropriate Trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has rapidly become an important area of focus for both researchers and practitioners. Various approaches have been used to achieve it, such as confidence scores, explanations, trustworthiness cues, or uncertainty communication. However, a comprehensive understanding of the field is lacking due to the diversity of perspectives arising from various backgrounds that influence it and the lack of a single definition for appropriate trust. To investigate this topic, this paper presents a systematic review to identify current practices in building appropriate trust, different ways to measure it, types of tasks used, and potential challenges associated with it. We also propose a Belief, Intentions, and Actions (BIA) mapping to study commonalities and differences in the concepts related to appropriate trust by (a) describing the existing disagreements on defining appropriate trust, and (b) providing an overview of the concepts and definitions related to appropriate trust in AI from the existing literature. Finally, the challenges identified in studying appropriate trust are discussed, and observations are summarized as current trends, potential gaps, and research opportunities for future work. Overall, the paper provides insights into the complex concept of appropriate trust in human-AI interaction and presents research opportunities to advance our understanding on this topic.@en

In human-machine teams, the strengths and weaknesses of both team members result in dependencies, opportunities, and requirements to collaborate. Managing these interdependence relationships is crucial for teamwork, as it is argued that they facilitate accurate trust calibration. Unfortunately, empirical research on the influence of interdependence on trust calibration during human-machine teamwork is lacking. Therefore, we conducted an experiment (n=80) to study the effect of interdependence relationships (complete independence, complementary independence, optional interdependence, required interdependence) on human-machine trust calibration. Participants collaborated with a virtual agent during a simulated search and rescue task in teams characterized by one of the four interdependencies. A machine-induced trust violation was included in the task to facilitate dynamic trust calibration. Results show that the interdependence relationships during human-machine teamwork influence perceived trust calibration over time. Only in the teams with joint actions (optional and required interdependence) does perceived trust in the machine not recover to its initial pre-violated value. However, results show that the correlation between perceived trust in the machine and machine trustworthiness is strongest in these teams with joint actions, suggesting a more accurate trust calibration process. Overall, our findings provide some first evidence that interdependence relationships during human-machine teamwork influence human-machine trust calibration.@en

As machines' autonomy increases, their capacity to learn and adapt to humans in collaborative scenarios increases too. In particular, machines can use artificial trust (AT) to make decisions, such as task and role allocation/selection. However, the outcome of such decisions and the way these are communicated can affect the human's trust, which in turn affects how the human collaborates too. With the goal of maintaining mutual appropriate trust between the human and the machine in mind, we reflect on the requirements for having an AT-based decision-making model on an artificial teammate. Furthermore, we propose a user study to investigate the role of task-based willingness (e.g. human preferences on tasks) and its communication in AT-based decision-making.@en

As machines' autonomy increases, the possibilities for collaboration between a human and a machine also increase. In particular, tasks may be performed with varying levels of interdependence, i.e. from independent to joint actions. The feasibility of each type of interdependence depends on factors that contribute to contextual trustworthiness, such as team members' competence, willingness and external factors. In this paper, we present the Interdependence and Trust Analysis (ITA) framework, which is an extension of Coactive Design's Interdependence Analysis framework (Johnson, M., J. M. Bradshaw, P. J. Feltovich, C. M. Jonker, M. Birna Van Riemsdijk, M. Sierhuis. 2014. Coactive Design: Designing Support for Interdependence in Joint Activity. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3 (1): 43–69. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.1.Johnson). By including information on contextual trustworthiness, ITA can better support the design of human–machine teams, as well as task allocation and selection. Evaluated through expert interviews and a focus group involving a search and rescue scenario, ITA shows potential as a decision-making tool and a communication bridge among human and machine teammates. Our findings emphasise the need to define tasks and roles based on agent characteristics, and imply that decision-making models should align with human-centred objectives. ITA also highlights the trade-off between utility and effort when designing trustworthy systems, suggesting that guided conversations could improve the team design process. Finally, the ITA framework may improve transparency, justification, and interpretability in decision-making, contributing to appropriate trust among teammates.

@en

As human-machine teams become a more common scenario, we need to ensure mutual trust between humans and machines. More important than having trust, we need all teammates to trust each other appropriately. This means that they should not overtrust or undertrust each other, avoiding risks and inefficiencies, respectively. We usually think of natural trust, that is, humans trusting machines, but we should also consider artificial trust, that is, artificial agents trusting humans. Appropriate artificial trust allows the agents to interpret human behavior and predict their behavior in a certain context. In this chapter, we explore how we can define this context in terms of task and team characteristics. We present a taxonomy that shows how trust is context-dependent. In fact, we propose that no trust model presented in the literature fits all contexts and argue that our taxonomy facilitates the choice of the trust model that better fits a certain context. The taxonomy helps to understand which internal characteristics of the teammate (krypta) are important to consider and how they will show in behavior cues (manifesta). This taxonomy can also be used to help human-machine teams’ researchers in the problem definition and process of experimental design as it allows a detailed characterization of the task and team configuration. Furthermore, we propose a formalization of the belief of trust as context-dependent trustworthiness, and show how beliefs of trust can be used to reach appropriate trust. Our work provides a starting point to implement mutual appropriate trust in human-machine teams.@en

Appropriate trust, trust which aligns with system trustworthiness, in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has become an important area of research. However, there remains debate in the community about how to design for appropriate trust. This debate is a result of the complex nature of trust in AI, which can be difficult to understand and evaluate, as well as the lack of holistic approaches to trust. In this paper, we aim to clarify some of this debate by operationalising appropriate trust within the context of the Human-Centred AI Design (HCD) process. To do so, we organised three workshops with 13 participants total from design and development backgrounds. We carried out design activities to stimulate discussion on appropriate trust in the HCD process. This paper aims to help researchers and practitioners understand appropriate trust in AI through a design lens by illustrating how it interacts with the HCD process.@en

Changing one’s behavior is difficult, so many people look towards technology for help. However, most current behavior change support systems are inflexible in that they support one type of behavior change and do not reason about
how that behavior is embedded in larger behavior patterns. To allow users to flexibly decide what they desire to change, a system needs to represent and reason about that desire. Moreover, we argue that reasoning about the context of a behavior could improve an agent’s support. Therefore, we propose a formal framework for a reasoning agent to represent and reason about the personal behavioral context of desired user changes. This framework models an individual’s possible and current behavior, their desire for change, as well as other relevant changes that a system could use to support a desired change. In a user survey we show that people feel these other relevant changes would be useful in more flexibly supporting their desired change in behavior. This work provides a foundation for more flexible personalized behavior change support.@en

With the increasing adoption of Artificial intelligence (AI) as a crucial component of business strategy, establishing trust between humans and AI teammates remains a key issue. The project “We are in this together” highlights current theories on trust in Human-AI teams (HAIT) and proposes a research model that integrates insights from Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Human Factors Engineering, Human-Computer Interaction, and Computer Science. The proposed model suggests that in HAIT, trust involves multiple actors and is critical for team success. We present three main propositions for understanding trust in HAIT collaboration, focused on trustworthiness and trustworthiness reactions in interpersonal relationships between humans and AI teammates. We further suggest that individual, technological, and environmental factors impact trust relationships in HAIT. The project aims to contribute in developing effective HAIT by proposing a research model of trust in HAIT.

@en

Establishing an appropriate level of trust between people and AI systems is crucial to avoid the misuse, disuse, or abuse of AI. Understanding how AI systems can generate appropriate levels of trust among users is necessary to achieve this goal. This study focuses on the impact of displaying integrity, which is one of the factors that influence trust. The study analyzes how different integrity-based explanations provided by an AI agent affect a human’s appropriate level of trust in the agent. To explore this, we conducted a between-subject user study involving 160 participants who collaborated with an AI agent to estimate calories on a food plate, with the AI agent expressing its integrity in different ways through explanations. The preliminary results demonstrate that an AI agent that explicitly acknowledges honesty in its decision making process elicit higher subjective trust than those that are transparent about their decision-making process or fair about biases. These findings can aid in designing agent-based AI systems that foster appropriate trust from humans.@en

For personal assistive technologies to effectively support users, they need a user model that records information about the user, such as their goals, values, and context. Knowledge-based techniques can model the relationships between these concepts, enabling the support agent to act in accordance with the user's values. However, user models require updating over time to accommodate changes and continuously align with what the user deems important. In our work, we propose and investigate the use of human-agent alignment dialogues for establishing whether user model updates are needed and acquiring the necessary information for these updates. In this paper, we perform an exploratory qualitative focus group study in which we investigate participants' opinions about written examples of alignment dialogues, as a foundation for their design. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. A main theme that emerged concerns the potential impact of agent utterances on the user's feelings about themselves and about the agent.

@en

Human-AI teams count on both humans and artificial agents to work together collaboratively. In human-human teams, we use trust to make decisions. Similarly, our work explores how an AI can use trust (in human teammates) to make decisions while ensuring the team’s goal and mitigating risks for the humans involved. We present the several steps and challenges towards the development of an artificial-trust-based decision-making model.

@en

For human-agent teams to be successful, agent explanations are crucial. These explanations should ideally be personalized by adapting them to intended human users. So far, little work has been conducted on personalized agent explanations during human-agent teamwork. Therefore, an online experiment (n = 60) was conducted to compare personalized agent explanations against a baseline of non-personalized explanations. We implemented four agents who adapted their explanations during a search and rescue task randomly, or based on human workload, performance, or trust. Results show that personalized explanations can increase explanation satisfaction and trust in the agent, but also decrease performance. Therefore, we conclude that personalized agent explanations can be beneficial to human-agent teamwork, but that user modelling and personalization techniques should be carefully considered.@en

Introduction: Collaboration in teams composed of both humans and automation has an interdependent nature, which demands calibrated trust among all the team members. For building suitable autonomous teammates, we need to study how trust and trustworthiness function in such teams. In particular, automation occasionally fails to do its job, which leads to a decrease in a human’s trust. Research has found interesting effects of such a reduction of trust on the human’s trustworthiness, i.e., human characteristics that make them more or less reliable. This paper investigates how automation failure in a human-automation collaborative scenario affects the human’s trust in the automation, as well as a human’s trustworthiness towards the automation.Methods: We present a 2 × 2 mixed design experiment in which the participants perform a simulated task in a 2D grid-world, collaborating with an automation in a “moving-out” scenario. During the experiment, we measure the participants’ trustworthiness, trust, and liking regarding the automation, both subjectively and objectively.Results: Our results show that automation failure negatively affects the human’s trustworthiness, as well as their trust in and liking of the automation.Discussion: Learning the effects of automation failure in trust and trustworthiness can contribute to a better understanding of the nature and dynamics of trust in these teams and improving human-automation teamwork.@en