A Systematic Review on Fostering Appropriate Trust in Human-AI Interaction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06305v1
• Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 12:19:58 GMT
• Title: A Systematic Review on Fostering Appropriate Trust in Human-AI Interaction
• Authors: Siddharth Mehrotra, Chadha Degachi, Oleksandra Vereschak, Catholijn M. Jonker, Myrthe L. Tielman
• Abstract summary: Appropriate Trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has rapidly become an important area of focus for both researchers and practitioners. Various approaches have been used to achieve it, such as confidence scores, explanations, trustworthiness cues, or uncertainty communication. This paper presents a systematic review to identify current practices in building appropriate trust, different ways to measure it, types of tasks used, and potential challenges associated with it.
• Score: 19.137907393497848
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Appropriate Trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has rapidly become an important area of focus for both researchers and practitioners. Various approaches have been used to achieve it, such as confidence scores, explanations, trustworthiness cues, or uncertainty communication. However, a comprehensive understanding of the field is lacking due to the diversity of perspectives arising from various backgrounds that influence it and the lack of a single definition for appropriate trust. To investigate this topic, this paper presents a systematic review to identify current practices in building appropriate trust, different ways to measure it, types of tasks used, and potential challenges associated with it. We also propose a Belief, Intentions, and Actions (BIA) mapping to study commonalities and differences in the concepts related to appropriate trust by (a) describing the existing disagreements on defining appropriate trust, and (b) providing an overview of the concepts and definitions related to appropriate trust in AI from the existing literature. Finally, the challenges identified in studying appropriate trust are discussed, and observations are summarized as current trends, potential gaps, and research opportunities for future work. Overall, the paper provides insights into the complex concept of appropriate trust in human-AI interaction and presents research opportunities to advance our understanding on this topic.

Related papers

• On the Trustworthiness of Generative Foundation Models: Guideline, Assessment, and Perspective [314.7991906491166]
  Generative Foundation Models (GenFMs) have emerged as transformative tools. Their widespread adoption raises critical concerns regarding trustworthiness across dimensions. This paper presents a comprehensive framework to address these challenges through three key contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T06:20:36Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [49.60774626839712]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their fairness, reliability, and potential for misuse. We propose an evaluation framework designed to assess model reliability through their responses to perturbations in the embedding space. Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and retrieval of bias provenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• Trusting Your AI Agent Emotionally and Cognitively: Development and Validation of a Semantic Differential Scale for AI Trust [16.140485357046707]
  We develop and validated a set of 27-item semantic differential scales for affective and cognitive trust. Our empirical findings showed how the emotional and cognitive aspects of trust interact with each other and collectively shape a person's overall trust in AI agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T18:55:33Z)
• Advancing Explainable Autonomous Vehicle Systems: A Comprehensive Review and Research Roadmap [4.2330023661329355]
  This study presents a review to discuss the complexities associated with explanation generation and presentation. Our roadmap is underpinned by principles of responsible research and innovation. By exploring these research directions, the study aims to guide the development and deployment of explainable AVs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-19T11:43:41Z)
• Explainable AI for clinical risk prediction: a survey of concepts, methods, and modalities [2.9404725327650767]
  Review of progress in developing explainable models for clinical risk prediction. emphasizes the need for external validation and the combination of diverse interpretability methods. End-to-end approach to explainability in clinical risk prediction is essential for success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-16T14:51:51Z)
• Trustworthy Federated Learning: A Survey [0.5089078998562185]
  Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a significant advancement in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) We provide an extensive overview of the current state of Trustworthy FL, exploring existing solutions and well-defined pillars relevant to Trustworthy. We propose a taxonomy that encompasses three main pillars: Interpretability, Fairness, and Security & Privacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T09:11:26Z)
• The Many Facets of Trust in AI: Formalizing the Relation Between Trust and Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency [4.003809001962519]
  Efforts to promote fairness, accountability, and transparency are assumed to be critical in fostering Trust in AI (TAI) The lack of exposition on trust itself suggests that trust is commonly understood, uncomplicated, or even uninteresting. Our analysis of TAI publications reveals numerous orientations which differ in terms of who is doing the trusting (agent), in what (object), on the basis of what (basis), in order to what (objective), and why (impact)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-01T08:26:57Z)
• Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective [56.80107647520364]
  We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH. We highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. We propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T00:14:33Z)
• Trusted Multi-View Classification with Dynamic Evidential Fusion [73.35990456162745]
  We propose a novel multi-view classification algorithm, termed trusted multi-view classification (TMC) TMC provides a new paradigm for multi-view learning by dynamically integrating different views at an evidence level. Both theoretical and experimental results validate the effectiveness of the proposed model in accuracy, robustness and trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T03:48:49Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)
• Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI [55.4046755826066]
  We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold. We discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T03:07:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.