Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 45

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

van der Waa, Jasper, Verdult, Sabine, van den Bosch, Karel, van Diggelen, Jurriaan, Haije, Tjalling, van der Stigchel, Birgit, Cocu, Ioana·2021·Frontiers in Robotics and AI

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/frobt.2021.640647

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Adebayo, 2018, Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 9505
  2. Alexander, 1977, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction
  3. Arkin, 2009, Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots, 10.1201/9781420085952 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 2014, Key Areas for Debate on Autonomous Weapons Systems
  5. Barnes, 2017, Humans and Autonomy: Implications of Shared Decision Making for Military Operations. Technical Report
  6. Billings, 1996, Human-centered Aviation Automation: Principles and Guidelines
  7. Boardman, 2019, An Exploration of Maintaining Human Control in Ai Enabled Systems and the Challenges of Achieving it
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Crootof, 2016, A Meaningful Floor for Meaningful Human Control, Temp. Int’l Comp. LJ, 30
  11. Diggelen, 2019, Pluggable Social Artificial Intelligence for Enabling Human-Agent Teaming
  12. Diggelen, 2018, Developing Effective and Resilient Human-Agent Teamwork Using Team Design Patterns, IEEE Intell. Syst., 34, 15, 10.1109/MIS.2018.2886671 · DOI
  13. Dimanov, 2020, You Shouldn’t Trust Me: Learning Models Which Conceal Unfairness from Multiple Explanation Methods, SafeAI@ AAAI, 63
  14. Ekelhof, 2018, Lifting the Fog of Targeting, Naval War Coll. Rev., 71, 61
  15. Fonteyn, 1993, A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis, Qual. Health Res., 3, 430, 10.1177/104973239300300403 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 2020, The Effects of Explainability and Causability on Perception, Trust, and Acceptance: Implications for Explainable Ai, Int. J. Human-Computer Stud., 102551
  17. Giles, 2019, Please Stop Permuting Features: An Explanation and Alternatives
  18. Gong, 2018, Behavior Explanation as Intention Signaling in Human-Robot Teaming, 1005
  19. Guarini, 2012, Robotic Warfare: Some Challenges in Moving from Noncivilian to Civilian Theaters, Robot Ethics ethical Soc. implications robotics, 129, 136
  20. 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
  21. Horowitz, 2015, Meaningful Human Control in Weapon Systems: A Primer. Technical Report
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Kindermans, 2019, The (Un)reliability of Saliency Methods, 267, 10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6_14 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kruschitz, 2010, Human-computer Interaction Design Patterns: Structure, Methods, and Tools, Int. J. Adv. Softw., 3
  26. Miller, 2018, Contrastive Explanation: A Structural-Model Approach
  27. Peeters, 2020, Hybrid Collective Intelligence in a Human–Ai Society, 1
  28. Russell, 2015, Robotics: Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, Nature, 521, 415, 10.1038/521415a · DOI
  29. Sadeghi, 2006, A Bayesian Model for Triage Decision Support, Int. J. Med. Inform., 75, 403, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.028 · DOI
  30. Scott, 2018, Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensembles
  31. 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
  32. Strobl, 2008, Conditional Variable Importance for Random Forests, BMC bioinformatics, 9, 307, 10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Toloşi, 2011, Classification with Correlated Features: Unreliability of Feature Ranking and Solutions, Bioinformatics, 27, 1986, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr300 · DOI · Paper page
  34. van der Waa, 2019, Matrx Software
  35. Waa, 2020, Evaluating Xai: A Comparison of Rule-Based and Example-Based Explanations, 103404
  36. Waa, 2018, Contrastive Explanations with Local Foil Trees
  37. Waa, 2020, Interpretable Confidence Measures for Decision Support Systems, Int. J. Human-Computer Stud., 102493, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102493 · DOI
  38. Zhuang, 2019, Decision Explanation and Feature Importance for Invertible Networks, 4235

Cited by

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
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

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.