Models of Trust in Human Control of Swarms With Varied Levels of Autonomy
Abstract
In this paper, we study human trust and its computational models in supervisory control of swarm robots with varied levels of autonomy (LOA) in a target foraging task. We implement three LOAs: manual, mixed-initiative (MI), and fully autonomous LOA. While the swarm in the MI LOA is controlled by a human operator and an autonomous search algorithm collaboratively, the swarms in the manual and autonomous LOAs are fully directed by the human and the search algorithm, respectively. From user studies, we find that humans tend to make their decisions based on physical characteristics of the swarm rather than its performance since the task performance of swarms is not clearly perceivable by humans. Based on the analysis, we formulate trust as a Markov decision process whose state space includes the factors affecting trust. We develop variations of the trust model for different LOAs. We employ an inverse reinforcement learning algorithm to learn behaviors of the operator from demonstrations where the learned behaviors are used to predict human trust. Compared to an existing model, our models reduce the prediction error by at most 39.6%, 36.5%, and 28.8% in the manual, MI, and auto-LOA, respectively.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reliable identification of defects in a large infrastructure requires efficient search abilities that could be best implemented by means of swarms.
“Similarly, reliable identification of defects in a large infrastructure requires efficient search abilities that could be best implemented by means of swarms [126].”
From Swarm Robotics: Past, Present, and Future [Point of View] (2021) · cites this paper as [126]
Cites
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Trust in automation has typically been defined as a human’s willingness to rely on automation to perform a fixed task [8].”
BackgroundA Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It has found that trust is influenced mostly by the performance of the robot [14], and that the operator takes control of the robot if he/she does not trust it (e.g., [15], [16]).”
BackgroundMUIR, B. M., & MORAY, N. (1996) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139608964474 · Cited by 993 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Swarm Robotics: Past, Present, and Future [Point of View]
Dorigo, M., Theraulaz, G., & Trianni, V. (2021) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2021.3072740 · Cited by 401 · see citing works
Trust in Human-AI Interaction: Scoping Out Models, Measures, and Methods
Ueno, T., Sawa, Y., Kim, Y., Urakami, J., Oura, H., & Seaborn, K. (2022) · Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491101.3519772 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nam, C., Walker, P., Li, H., Lewis, M., & Sycara, K.
- Affiliations
- Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
- Smart Information Flow Technologies (United States) (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 194-204
- ISSN
- 2168-2291 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-2305
- OpenAlex
- W2916883963
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 12.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-15-1-0442)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
- Keywords
- swarm robots, autonomy levels, supervisory control, mixed-initiative control, operator decision-making, foraging task, inverse reinforcement learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review