MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565927807 · doi:10.1109/iros.2016.7759510

Maintaining efficient collaboration with trust-seeking robots

2016· article· en· W2565927807 on OpenAlexafffund
Anqi Xu, Gregory Dudek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsRobotComputer scienceSupervisorHuman–computer interactionTask (project management)Field (mathematics)TerrainInferenceAdaptation (eye)Control (management)Empirical researchHuman–robot interactionArtificial intelligenceKnowledge managementPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we grant robot agents the capacity to sense and react to their human supervisor's changing trust state, as a means to maintain the efficiency of their collaboration. We propose the novel formulation of Trust-Aware Conservative Control (TACtiC), in which the agent alters its behaviors momentarily whenever the human loses trust. This trust-seeking robot framework builds upon an online trust inference engine and also incorporates an interactive behavior adaptation technique. We present end-to-end instantiations of trust-seeking robots for distinct task domains of aerial terrain coverage and interactive autonomous driving. Empirical assessments comprise a large-scale controlled interaction study and its extension into field evaluations with an autonomous car. These assessments substantiate the efficiency gains that trust-seeking agents bring to asymmetric human-robot teams.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207