Agent-Based Simulation of Trust Development in Human-Robot Teams: An Empirically-Validated Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01189v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 17:05:28 GMT
• Title: Agent-Based Simulation of Trust Development in Human-Robot Teams: An Empirically-Validated Framework
• Abstract summary: The model, implemented in NetLogo 6.4.0, simulates teams of 2--10 agents performing tasks of varying complexity.<n>Trust asymmetry ratios ranged from 0.07 to 0.55, below the meta-analytic benchmark of 1.50.<n>The open-source implementation provides an evidence-based tool for identifying overtrust and undertrust conditions prior to deployment.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper presents an empirically grounded agent-based model capturing trust dynamics, workload distribution, and collaborative performance in human-robot teams. The model, implemented in NetLogo 6.4.0, simulates teams of 2--10 agents performing tasks of varying complexity. We validate against Hancock et al.'s (2021) meta-analysis, achieving interval validity for 4 of 8 trust antecedent categories and strong ordinal validity (Spearman \r{ho}=0.833ρ= 0.833 \r{ho}=0.833). Sensitivity analysis using OFAT and full factorial designs (n=50n = 50 n=50 replications per condition) reveals robot reliability exhibits the strongest effect on trust (η2=0.35η^2 = 0.35 η2=0.35) and dominates task success (η2=0.93η^2 = 0.93 η2=0.93) and productivity (η2=0.89η^2 = 0.89 η2=0.89), consistent with meta-analytic findings. Trust asymmetry ratios ranged from 0.07 to 0.55 -- below the meta-analytic benchmark of 1.50 -- revealing that per-event asymmetry does not guarantee cumulative asymmetry when trust repair mechanisms remain active. Scenario analysis uncovered trust-performance decoupling: the Trust Recovery scenario achieved the highest productivity (4.29) despite the lowest trust (38.2), while the Unreliable Robot scenario produced the highest trust (73.2) despite the lowest task success (33.4\%), establishing calibration error as a critical diagnostic distinct from trust magnitude. Factorial ANOVA confirmed significant main effects for reliability, transparency, communication, and collaboration (p<.001p < .001 p<.001), explaining 45.4\% of trust variance. The open-source implementation provides an evidence-based tool for identifying overtrust and undertrust conditions prior to deployment.

Related papers

• Unveiling the Entropy Dynamics of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [81.57028614960576]
  We show that the Confidence Region possesses two critical properties: 1) High Reliability -- answers in the confidence region become highly accurate and stable, and 2) High Redundancy -- models generate unnecessary tokens long after reaching the correct answer.<n>These properties unlock more efficient and reliable inference strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T10:11:14Z)
• Multi-Axis Trust Modeling for Interpretable Account Hijacking Detection [1.0152838128195467]
  This paper proposes a Hadith-inspired multi-axis trust modeling framework.<n>We translate five trust axes - long-term integrity (adalah), behavioral precision (dabt), contextual continuity (isnad), cumulative reputation, and anomaly evidence - into a compact set of 26 semantically meaningful behavioral features for user accounts.<n>We evaluate the framework on the CLUE-LDS cloud activity dataset with injected account hijacking scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T19:36:30Z)
• RFEval: Benchmarking Reasoning Faithfulness under Counterfactual Reasoning Intervention in Large Reasoning Models [5.733004743054914]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process.<n>We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions.<n>We present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T03:49:37Z)
• Know When You're Wrong: Aligning Confidence with Correctness for LLM Error Detection [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in critical decision-making systems.<n>We introduce a normalized confidence score based on output anchor token probabilities.<n>This enables direct detection of errors and hallucinations with minimal overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T07:05:12Z)
• Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems [79.64446272302287]
  We formalize a definition for agent evaluation and characterize scaling laws as the interplay between agent quantity, coordination structure, modelic, and task properties.<n>We derive a predictive model using coordination metrics, that cross-validated R2=0, enabling prediction on unseen task domains.<n>We identify three effects: (1) a tool-coordination trade-off: under fixed computational budgets, tool-heavy tasks suffer disproportionately from multi-agent overhead, and (2) a capability saturation: coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T06:52:21Z)
• Trust Dynamics in Strategic Coopetition: Computational Foundations for Requirements Engineering in Multi-Agent Systems [0.33985917934283577]
  This report develops a computational trust model that extends game-theoretic foundations for strategic coopetition with dynamic trust evolution.<n>We develop a structured translation framework enabling engineers to instantiate computational trust models from i* dependency networks and organizational contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T19:26:14Z)
• BrowseConf: Confidence-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Web Agents [58.05949210993854]
  We investigate whether search agents have the ability to communicate their own confidence through verbalized confidence scores after long sequences of actions.<n>We propose Test-Time Scaling (TTS) methods that use confidence scores to determine answer quality, encourage the model to try again until reaching a satisfactory confidence level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T15:58:51Z)
• ReFIne: A Framework for Trustworthy Large Reasoning Models with Reliability, Faithfulness, and Interpretability [23.70973331911138]
  We argue that usable reasoning systems must be trustworthy, characterized by three properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability.<n>We propose ReFIne, a new training framework that integrates supervised fine-tuning with GRPO to encourage models to improve interpretability.<n>Our experimental results show that ReFIne models generate clearer and better-structured reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T07:08:44Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• Synchronous Faithfulness Monitoring for Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Generation [96.78845113346809]
  Retrieval-augmented language models (RALMs) have shown strong performance and wide applicability in knowledge-intensive tasks. This paper proposes SynCheck, a lightweight monitor that leverages fine-grained decoding dynamics to detect unfaithful sentences. We also introduce FOD, a faithfulness-oriented decoding algorithm guided by beam search for long-form retrieval-augmented generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T16:42:57Z)
• Decoding Compressed Trust: Scrutinizing the Trustworthiness of Efficient LLMs Under Compression [109.23761449840222]
  This study conducts the first, thorough evaluation of leading Large Language Models (LLMs) We find that quantization is currently a more effective approach than pruning in achieving efficiency and trustworthiness simultaneously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T01:38:19Z)

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.