The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explanation and Coordination in Human-Agent Teams: A Study in the BW4T Testbed
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“Measures of performance varied widely, from objective measures from simulations (Grimm et al., 2018a) to subjective measures of attitudes (Harbers et al., 2011).”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Harbers et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“In addition, self-report methods were used along with measures of concurrent motion (Hoffman & Breazeal, 2007), and others inferred coordination based on the team’s level of performance (e.g., Harbers et al., 2011).”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Harbers et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“The most frequently used testbed for these simulations is B4WT (blocks for world teams), which requires working with an autonomous agent in order to move different colored blocks from one room to another (e.g., Harbers et al., 2011).”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Harbers et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“perceived understanding of the autonomous agent (Harbers et al., 2011)”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Harbers et al., 2011
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
How People Explain Behavior: A New Theoretical Framework
Malle, B. F. (1999) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2 · Cited by 538
Design and Evaluation of Explainable BDI Agents
Harbers, M., van den Bosch, K., & Meyer, J.-J. (2010) · 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology · doi:10.1109/wi-iat.2010.115 · Cited by 70
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100 · DOI · Paper page
- hindriks, 2009, ch. Programming Rational Agents in GOAL, Multi-Agent Programming Languages Tools and Applications, 119, 10.1007/978-0-387-89299-3_4 · DOI
- dennett, 1987, The Intentional Stance MIT Press
- 10.1007/978-3-642-10203-5_26 · DOI
- rao, 1995, BDI-agents: From theory to practice, Proceedings of ICMAS’95
- johnson, 0, Coactive design: Why interdependence must shape autonomy, Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems IV
- bradshaw, 2003, Representation and reasoning about daml-basedpolicy and domain services in KAoS, Proceedings of AAMAS03 ACM Press, 10.1145/860575.860709 · doi:10.1145/860575.860709
- bradshaw, 0, Human-agent interaction, Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction
Cited by
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature
O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B. (2022) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720820960865 · Cited by 695
Metadata
- Authors
- Harbers, M., Bradshaw, J. M., Johnson, M., Feltovich, P., van den Bosch, K., & Meyer, J.-J.
- Venue
- 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2011-08
- Pages
- 17-20
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 2
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Explanation and Coordination in Human-Agent Teams: A Study in the BW4T Testbed. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/wi-iat.2011.83
- The paper
- Harbers, M., Bradshaw, J. M., Johnson, M., Feltovich, P., van den Bosch, K., & Meyer, J.-J. (2011). Explanation and Coordination in Human-Agent Teams: A Study in the BW4T Testbed. 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology. https://doi.org/10.1109/wi-iat.2011.83
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
