The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Moral Decision Making in Human-Agent Teams: Human Control and the Role of Explanations
Abstract
With the progress of Artificial Intelligence, intelligent agents are increasingly being deployed in tasks for which ethical guidelines and moral values apply. As artificial agents do not have a legal position, humans should be held accountable if actions do not comply, implying humans need to exercise control. This is often labeled as Meaningful Human Control (MHC). In this paper, achieving MHC is addressed as a design problem, defining the collaboration between humans and agents. We propose three possible team designs (Team Design Patterns), varying in the level of autonomy on the agent’s part. The team designs include explanations given by the agent to clarify its reasoning and decision-making. The designs were implemented in a simulation of a medical triage task, to be executed by a domain expert and an artificial agent. The triage task simulates making decisions under time pressure, with too few resources available to comply with all medical guidelines all the time, hence involving moral choices. Domain experts (i.e., health care professionals) participated in the present study. One goal was to assess the ecological relevance of the simulation. Secondly, to explore the control that the human has over the agent to warrant moral compliant behavior in each proposed team design. Thirdly, to evaluate the role of agent explanations on the human’s understanding in the agent’s reasoning. Results showed that the experts overall found the task a believable simulation of what might occur in reality. Domain experts experienced control over the team’s moral compliance when consequences were quickly noticeable. When instead the consequences emerged much later, the experts experienced less control and felt less responsible. Possibly due to the experienced time pressure implemented in the task or over trust in the agent, the experts did not use explanations much during the task; when asked afterwards they however considered these to be useful. It is concluded that a team design should emphasize and support the human to develop a sense of responsibility for the agent’s behavior and for the team’s decisions. The design should include explanations that fit with the assigned team roles as well as the human cognitive state.
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
“In addition, the user can object to the delegation decision of the AI and take charge of the decision if considered appropriate (van der Waa et al., 2021).”
From Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as van der Waa et al., 2021
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
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423
Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences
Miller, T. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 · Cited by 5,302
Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.08608 · Cited by 3,121
Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19
Hollander, J. E., & Carr, B. G. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp2003539 · Cited by 2,970
Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions
Štrumbelj, E., & Kononenko, I. (2014) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-013-0679-x · Cited by 2,286
Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11491 · Cited by 2,162 · cited 1×
“A feature attribution can also be easily visualized using graphs or highlights (Ribeiro et al., 2018; Scott et al., 2018).”
BackgroundInterpretation of Neural Networks Is Fragile
Ghorbani, A., Abid, A., & Zou, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33013681 · Cited by 765
Ten challenges for making automation a ‘team player’ in joint human-agent activity
Klein, G., Woods, D. D., Bradshaw, J. M., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. J. (2004) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2004.74 · Cited by 590
Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account
Santoni de Sio, F., & van den Hoven, J. (2018) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00015 · Cited by 566 · cited 2×
“This ensures that humans can be held accountable for an agent ’ s behaviour at any time (Sio and Hoven, 2018).”
BackgroundArtificial Morality: Top-down, Bottom-up, and Hybrid Approaches
Allen, C., Smit, I., & Wallach, W. (2005) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-006-0004-4 · Cited by 346
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Adebayo, 2018, Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 9505
- Alexander, 1977, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction
- Arkin, 2009, Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots, 10.1201/9781420085952 · DOI · Paper page
- 2014, Key Areas for Debate on Autonomous Weapons Systems
- Barnes, 2017, Humans and Autonomy: Implications of Shared Decision Making for Military Operations. Technical Report
- Billings, 1996, Human-centered Aviation Automation: Principles and Guidelines
- Boardman, 2019, An Exploration of Maintaining Human Control in Ai Enabled Systems and the Challenges of Achieving it
- Calvert, 2020, A Human Centric Framework for the Analysis of Automated Driving Systems Based on Meaningful Human Control, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 21, 478, 10.1080/1463922x.2019.1697390 · DOI
- Chen, 2018, Situation Awareness-Based Agent Transparency and Human-Autonomy Teaming Effectiveness, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 19, 259, 10.1080/1463922x.2017.1315750 · DOI · Paper page
- Crootof, 2016, A Meaningful Floor for Meaningful Human Control, Temp. Int’l Comp. LJ, 30
- Diggelen, 2019, Pluggable Social Artificial Intelligence for Enabling Human-Agent Teaming
- Diggelen, 2018, Developing Effective and Resilient Human-Agent Teamwork Using Team Design Patterns, IEEE Intell. Syst., 34, 15, 10.1109/MIS.2018.2886671 · DOI
- Dimanov, 2020, You Shouldn’t Trust Me: Learning Models Which Conceal Unfairness from Multiple Explanation Methods, SafeAI@ AAAI, 63
- Ekelhof, 2018, Lifting the Fog of Targeting, Naval War Coll. Rev., 71, 61
- Fonteyn, 1993, A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis, Qual. Health Res., 3, 430, 10.1177/104973239300300403 · DOI · Paper page
- 2020, The Effects of Explainability and Causability on Perception, Trust, and Acceptance: Implications for Explainable Ai, Int. J. Human-Computer Stud., 102551
- Giles, 2019, Please Stop Permuting Features: An Explanation and Alternatives
- Gong, 2018, Behavior Explanation as Intention Signaling in Human-Robot Teaming, 1005
- Guarini, 2012, Robotic Warfare: Some Challenges in Moving from Noncivilian to Civilian Theaters, Robot Ethics ethical Soc. implications robotics, 129, 136
- Holzinger, 2020, Measuring the Quality of Explanations: The System Causability Scale (Scs): Comparing Human and Machine Explanations, Kunstliche Intell. (Oldenbourg), 34, 193, 10.1007/s13218-020-00636-z · DOI · Paper page
- Horowitz, 2015, Meaningful Human Control in Weapon Systems: A Primer. Technical Report
- Khodabandehloo, 2020, Healthxai: Collaborative and Explainable Ai for Supporting Early Diagnosis of Cognitive Decline, Future Generation Comp. Syst., 116, 168, 10.1016/j.future.2020.10.030 · DOI
- Kim, 2006, Who Should I Blame? Effects of Autonomy and Transparency on Attributions in Human-Robot Interaction, 80, 10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314398 · DOI · Paper page
- Kindermans, 2019, The (Un)reliability of Saliency Methods, 267, 10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6_14 · DOI · Paper page
- Kruschitz, 2010, Human-computer Interaction Design Patterns: Structure, Methods, and Tools, Int. J. Adv. Softw., 3
- Miller, 2018, Contrastive Explanation: A Structural-Model Approach
- Peeters, 2020, Hybrid Collective Intelligence in a Human–Ai Society, 1
- Russell, 2015, Robotics: Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, Nature, 521, 415, 10.1038/521415a · DOI
- Sadeghi, 2006, A Bayesian Model for Triage Decision Support, Int. J. Med. Inform., 75, 403, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.028 · DOI
- Scott, 2018, Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensembles
- Strobl, 2007, Bias in Random Forest Variable Importance Measures: Illustrations, Sources and a Solution, BMC bioinformatics, 8, 25, 10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 · DOI · Paper page
- Strobl, 2008, Conditional Variable Importance for Random Forests, BMC bioinformatics, 9, 307, 10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 · DOI · Paper page
- Toloşi, 2011, Classification with Correlated Features: Unreliability of Feature Ranking and Solutions, Bioinformatics, 27, 1986, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr300 · DOI · Paper page
- van der Waa, 2019, Matrx Software
- Waa, 2020, Evaluating Xai: A Comparison of Rule-Based and Example-Based Explanations, 103404
- Waa, 2018, Contrastive Explanations with Local Foil Trees
- Waa, 2020, Interpretable Confidence Measures for Decision Support Systems, Int. J. Human-Computer Stud., 102493, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102493 · DOI
- Zhuang, 2019, Decision Explanation and Feature Importance for Invertible Networks, 4235
Cited by
Gomez, C., Cho, S. M., Ke, S., Huang, C.-M., & Unberath, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2024.1521066 · Cited by 209
Joksimovic, S., Ifenthaler, D., Marrone, R., De Laat, M., & Siemens, G. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100138 · Cited by 152
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Waa, J., Verdult, S., van den Bosch, K., van Diggelen, J., Haije, T., van der Stigchel, B., & Cocu, I.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Robotics and AI
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2021-05-27
- Volume
- 8
- ISSN
- 2296-9144
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 11
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: Moral Decision Making in Human-Agent Teams: Human Control and the Role of Explanations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/frobt.2021.640647
- The paper
- van der Waa, J., Verdult, S., van den Bosch, K., van Diggelen, J., Haije, T., van der Stigchel, B., & Cocu, I. (2021). Moral Decision Making in Human-Agent Teams: Human Control and the Role of Explanations. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.640647
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.