Performance-based Data-driven Assessment of Trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The likelihood of an agent’s success in achieving its goals and subgoals under specific operational constraints is an important factor in performance-based trust. Trust management systems are being proposed to monitor performance and other trust-related system variables to improve operational efficiency. We present in this paper an exploratory study on the feasibility of assessing the performance of drone operators in a target-finding task through subjective and objective evaluations of the drone’s flight data. Thirty-nine participants were trained in using a teleoperated drone to find specific alphanumeric targets arranged on the laboratory floor and thereafter performed the task three times in separate three-minute runs. Following this, they made subjective assessments of other operators’ performance based on viewing the flight paths flown. Linear mixed effects modelling of subjective performance assessments showed either non-significant or weak relationships between subjective assessments and actual operator performance. Binomial logistic regression modelling showed significant relationships between features of the drone’s flight pattern and operator performance. These results could inform the development of data-driven, performance-based trust management systems for use in collaborative human and machine environments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".