CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Social Robot Interaction and HRIUsability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Designing Human-Agent Collaborations: Commitment, responsiveness, and support

Open access
Cila, Nazli·2022·CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3491102.3517500
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the advancements in AI, agents (i.e., smart products, robots, software agents) are increasingly capable of working closely together with humans in a variety of ways while benefiting from each other. These human-agent collaborations have gained growing attention in the HCI community; however, the field lacks clear guidelines on how to design the agents’ behaviors in collaborations. In this paper, the qualities that are relevant for designers to create robust and pleasant human-agent collaborations were investigated. Bratman's Shared Cooperative Activity framework was used to identify the core characteristics of collaborations and survey the most important issues in the design of human-agent collaborations, namely code-of-conduct, task delegation, autonomy and control, intelligibility, common ground, offering help and requesting help. The aim of this work is to add structure to this growing and important facet of HCI research and operationalize the concept of human-agent collaboration with concrete design considerations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491102.3517500

Cites

143 of 143 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Using a tool designed for human decision-making to evaluate algorithmic decision-making may not encompass the unique challenges that algorithmic systems bring to existing processes.

    “Despite our promising fndings, using a tool that was designed for human decision-making to evaluate algorithmic decision-making may not encompass the unique challenges that the inclusion of algorithmic systems bring to existing processes (as it is the case for other felds such as human-agent collaboration [23]).”

    From Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Alfred Benedikt Brendel, Maike Greve, Stephan Diederich, Johannes Bührke, and Lutz M. Kolbe. 2020. You are an Idiot! How Conversational Agent Com- munication Patterns Influence Frustration and Harassment. 2020. AMCIS 2020 Proceedings. 13.
  2. Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, pp. 56-311. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Jaime R. Carbonell. 1970. Mixed-initiative man-computer instructional dialogues. Final report. Tech. Rep. No. BBN-1971, Job No. 11399. Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek & Newman, Inc.
  4. Joyce Y. Chai, Lanbo She, Rui Fang, Spencer Ottarson, Cody Littley, Changsong Liu, and Kenneth Hanson. 2014. Collaborative effort towards common ground in situated human-robot dialogue. " In 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, 33-40.
  5. Mark Coeckelbergh. 2020. AI Ethics. MIT Press.
  6. Herbert H. Clark. 1996. Using language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (127-149).
  8. Maartje M. A. de Graaf and Bertram F. Malle. 2017. How People Explain Action (and Autonomous Intelligent Systems Should Too). AAAI 2017 Fall Symposium on "AI-HRI", 19-26.
  9. Anca D. Dragan, Shira Bauman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Siddhartha S. Srinivasa. 2015. Effects of robot motion on human-robot collaboration. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 51-58.
  10. Alvin I. Goldman. 2012. Theory of mind. In E. Margolis, & S. P. Stich (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science, 402-424. London: Oxford University Press.
  11. Barbara J. Grosz. 1996. Collaborative systems (AAAI-94 presidential address). AI magazine, 17, 2, 67.
  12. Barbara J. Grosz and Candace L. Sidner. 1990. Plans for discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (Chapter 20). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  13. Giulio Jacucci, Anna Spagnolli, Jonathan Freeman, and Luciano Gamberini. 2015. Symbiotic interaction: a critical definition and comparison to other human- computer paradigms. In International workshop on symbiotic interaction, pp. 3-20. Springer, Cham.
  14. Paul T. Kidd, Mansour Rahimi, and Waldemar Karwowski. 1992. Design of human-centered robotic systems. In human robot interaction, pp. 225-241. Lon- don, UK: Taylor and Francis.
  15. Dimitri Ognibene and Yiannis Demiris. 2013. Towards active event recognition. In Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  16. Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Kheng Lee Koay, and Michael L. Wal- ters. 2009. The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. In Proceedings new frontiers in human-robot interaction, a symposium at the AISB 2009 convention (pp. 1-8). Heriot Watt University, 8-9 April 2009, Edinburgh, Scotland.
  17. Jeroen van den Hoven. 1998. Moral responsibility, public office and information technology. In Public Administration in an Information Age: A Handbook, eds I. T. M. Snellen and W. B. H. J. Van de Donk (IOS Press), 579. Available at: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=ehjvAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&p- g=PA97&ots=JSy2OH4ng0&sig=jiK842VhBsC_h9oHmsY2YGufgeQ&rediresc= y#v=onepage&q&f=false
  18. J. J. Van der Waa, J. van Diggelen, M. Neerincx. 2018. The design and validation of an intuitive certainty measure. IUI 2018workshop on explainable smart systems. In: IUI 2018 workshop on explainable smart systems. ACM.
  19. H. James Wilson and Paul R. Daugherty. 2018. Collaborative intelligence: humans and AI are joining forces. Harvard Business Review 96, 4, 114-123.
  20. Michael Wooldridge,and Nicholas R. Jennings. 1995. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The knowledge engineering review, 10, 2, 115-152.
  21. Robert H. Wortham and Vivienne Rogers. 2017. The muttering robot: improving robot transparency though vocalisation of reactive plan execution." In 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communica- tion (Ro-Man) Workshop on Agent Transparency for Human-Autonomy Teaming Effectiveness (Lisbon:). 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cila, N.
Affiliations
Human-Centered Design, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
Venue
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-29
Pages
1-18
DOI
10.1145/3491102.3517500
OpenAlex
W4225153904
Cited by
65
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 1
FWCI
27.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
human-agent collaboration, agent design, codes of conduct, task delegation, autonomy and control, intelligibility, common ground, human-robot interaction, software agents, design guidelines

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