Towards Explainable and Trustworthy Autonomous Physical Systems
Open accessAbstract
The safe deployment of autonomous physical systems in real-world scenarios requires them to be explainable and trustworthy, especially in critical domains. In contrast with ‘black-box’ systems, explainable and trustworthy autonomous physical systems will lend themselves to easy assessments by system designers and regulators. This promises to pave ways for easy improvements that can lead to enhanced performance, and as well, increased public trust. In this one-day virtual workshop, we aim to gather a globally distributed group of researchers and practitioners to discuss the opportunities and social challenges in the design, implementation, and deployment of explainable and trustworthy autonomous physical systems, especially in a post-pandemic era. Interactions will be fostered through panel discussions and a series of spotlight talks. To ensure lasting impact of the workshop, we will conduct a pre-workshop survey which will examine the public perception of the trustworthiness of autonomous physical systems. Further, we will publish a summary report providing details about the survey as well as the identified challenges resulting from the workshop’s panel discussions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Cites
Making machine learning robust against adversarial inputs
Goodfellow, I., McDaniel, P., & Papernot, N. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3134599 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
Planning with Trust for Human-Robot Collaboration
Chen, M., Nikolaidis, S., Soh, H., Hsu, D., & Srinivasa, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3171221.3171264 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Online Stability in Human-Robot Cooperation with Admittance Control
Dimeas, F., & Aspragathos, N. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Haptics · doi:10.1109/toh.2016.2518670 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Burton, S., Habli, I., Lawton, T., McDermid, J. A., Morgan, P., & Porter, Z. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2019.103201 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
SupportingTrust in Autonomous Driving
Häuslschmid, R., von Bülow, M., Pfleging, B., & Butz, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3025171.3025198 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Explainable Agency for Intelligent Autonomous Systems
Langley, P., Meadows, B., Sridharan, M., & Choi, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i2.19108 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Human-Robot Mutual Adaptation in Shared Autonomy
Nikolaidis, S., Zhu, Y. X., Hsu, D., & Srinivasa, S. (2017) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1145/2909824.3020252 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Understandable robots - What, Why, and How
Hellström, T., & Bensch, S. (2018) · Paladyn Journal of Behavioral Robotics · doi:10.1515/pjbr-2018-0009 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Towards a Theory of Explanations for Human–Robot Collaboration
Sridharan, M., & Meadows, B. (2019) · KI - Künstliche Intelligenz · doi:10.1007/s13218-019-00616-y · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Relationships between Robot's Self-Disclosures and Human's Anxiety toward Robots
Nomura, T., & Kawakami, K. (2011) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT) · doi:10.1109/wi-iat.2011.17 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Robots without faces: non-verbal social human-robot interaction
Murphy, R. R., Hall, L., & Bethel, C. L. (2009) · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Barfoot, T. D., Burgner-Kahrs, J., Diller, E., Garg, A., Goldenberg, A. A., Kelly, J., Liu, X., Naguib, H. E., Nejat, G., Schoellig, A. P., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.08577 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Tools for Trustworthy Autonomy: Robust Predictions, Intuitive Control, and Optimized Interaction
Campbell, D., & Rose, K. (2017) · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Chamola, V., Hassija, V., Sulthana, A. R., Ghosh, D., Dhingra, D., & Sikdar, B. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3294569 · Cited by 352 · see citing works
“Omeiza et al. have suggested various explanations and interpretabilities in relation to autonomous systems [90].”
Background
- Authors
- Omeiza, D., Anjomshoae, S., Kollnig, K., Camburu, O.-M., Främling, K., & Kunze, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Umeå University (SE)
- Venue
- Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-05-08
- Pages
- 1-3
- OpenAlex
- W3162575222
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.23
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Lloyd's Register
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/S005099/1, 2219016)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- trustworthy autonomous systems, public trust, safety assessment, post-pandemic
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
