Cited by 76Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIAccess Control and Trust

Models of Trust in Human Control of Swarms With Varied Levels of Autonomy

Nam, Changjoo, Walker, Phillip, Li, Huao, Lewis, Michael, Sycara, Katia·2020·IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems

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

Crossref · 10.1109/thms.2019.2896845

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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