Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Towards Friendly AI: A Comprehensive Review and New Perspectives on Human-AI Alignment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A new review defines Friendly AI as mutual respect and trust between humans and machines, not just safety, and maps the field's supporting and opposing theories along with its four main technical pillars.

desk verdict A useful but uneven survey of Friendly AI: the definition synthesis and application map help newcomers, but the gap claim, citation discipline, and internal consistency need work before it can serve as the field's entry point. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15114 v1 pith:NSA67NWO submitted 2024-12-19 cs.AI cs.CY

Qiyang Sun , Yupei Li , Emran Alturki , Sunil Munthumoduku Krishna Murthy , Björn W. Schuller This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CY
keywords FriendlyAIhuman-AIalignmentvalueexplainableaffectivecomputingprivacy-preservingfairnessinethical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that, despite decades of debate about Friendly AI, no comprehensive review has systematically organized the field's definitions, theoretical stances, and technical applications. It proposes a refined definition: FAI is an initiative to create systems that not only prioritize human safety and well-being but also actively foster mutual respect, understanding, and trust between humans and AI. The authors organize the scholarly landscape into supportive frameworks (value alignment, deontology, altruism) and objections (moral and technical difficulty, ambiguity of 'friendliness', safety and trust risks, evaluation problems). They then argue that explainable AI, privacy protection, fairness, and affective computing are the technical domains that already implement FAI principles within today's narrow AI systems. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper offers a single entry point for understanding what FAI is, why it is contested, and what technologies are meant to move it forward.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a two-part taxonomy: the theoretical debate and the technical application domains, held together by the paper's proposed definition of FAI as mutual respect, understanding, and trust between humans and AI. The theoretical part groups supporting ideas into three ethical frameworks (value alignment, deontology, altruism) and opposing arguments into four concerns (moral and technical feasibility, definitional ambiguity, safety and trust, evaluation and compliance). The application part selects four existing technical subfields (explainable AI, privacy, fairness, and affective computing) and argues that these already embody FAI principles in narrow AI, preparing the ground for future artificial general intelligence. The paper also uses the ANI-AGI-ASI developmental stages and the 'as-if friendship' (utility AI) framing to argue that we are at a critical ethical transition point where FAI guidance is most needed.

What would settle it

Conduct a systematic literature search with broader terms (including 'AI alignment review', 'human-AI trust survey', and 'ethical AI' surveys) and identify an existing comprehensive review of Friendly AI published before December 2024; alternatively, demonstrate that a major technical area such as AI safety, robustness, or human-robot interaction is missing from the paper's four application categories, which would show the claimed gap and scope are not accurate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a clarified definition and a systematic map of the Friendly AI field. It argues that existing definitions are scattered, one-sided, and focused either on AI serving humans or on humans treating AI well, but not both. The authors redefine FAI as an initiative to create systems that not only prioritize human safety and well-being but also actively foster mutual respect, understanding, and trust between humans and AI, ensuring alignment with human values and emotional needs in all interactions and decisions. The review then categorizes the theoretical debate: support from value alignment, deontology, and altruism, and opposition grounded in moral and technical challenges, the ambiguity and evolving nature of 'friendliness', safety and trust risks, and the lack of evaluation metrics. On the application side, it identifies explainable AI, privacy-preserving models, fairness techniques, and affective computing as the concrete technical directions that bring FAI closer to realization within current narrow AI systems.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's core contribution depends on the assumption that a simple two-keyword search for 'Friendly Artificial Intelligence' or 'FAI' is enough to prove that no comprehensive review exists, and that the four chosen technical fields are the right ones to define FAI's scope.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FAI is accepted as the organizing concept, then research on explainability, privacy, fairness, and emotion recognition should be evaluated not only on technical merit but also on how they contribute to mutual trust and respect between humans and AI.
  • A unified, modular definition of FAI would make it possible to compare systems, measure progress, and set regulatory standards where none currently exist.
  • The paper's critique implies that AI development should shift from 'slave AI' models toward 'utility AI' or 'social AI' that emulate virtues of friendship, which would change design goals in human-computer interaction.
  • If the proposed technical subfields are formally recognized under FAI, funding and research priorities within those fields could be redirected toward long-term ethical alignment rather than task-specific performance.
  • The paper's challenges section implies that international coordination, cross-cultural ethical frameworks, and public education are necessary preconditions for FAI to be realized, not optional additions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's definition implies a testable criterion: a system is 'friendly' only if it promotes bidirectional trust, meaning future FAI evaluation would need to measure not just whether humans trust AI but also whether AI's behavior warrants that trust—a metric that does not currently exist.
  • Selecting XAI, privacy, fairness, and affective computing as the four technical pillars may under-represent AI safety and robustness work, which the paper mentions under 'Safety AI' but does not develop as a dedicated application; a fuller FAI map might include adversarial robustness, value learning, and human-in-the-loop control.
  • The cross-cultural ethical framework the paper proposes suggests a modular architecture: globally shared principles (fairness, privacy) combined with regionally adaptive ethical modules, which could be implemented as a decentralized governance layer for AI systems.
  • If the 'as-if friendship' framework is taken seriously, then the next research step would be to operationalize friendship virtues—empathy, helpfulness, transparency—into concrete behavioral benchmarks that can be tested across cultures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a literature review of Friendly AI (FAI), proposing a refined definition ('an initiative to create systems that not only prioritise human safety and well-being but also actively foster mutual respect, understanding, and trust between humans and AI'), outlining theoretical arguments for and against FAI, and surveying four application areas (XAI, privacy, fairness, affective computing) as candidate FAI subfields. It closes with challenges and suggestions. The paper claims to fill a gap as the first comprehensive FAI review, based on a two-keyword Google Scholar search.

Significance. If the survey's scope claims were supported, it would be a useful entry-point mapping of FAI debates and an accessible synthesis of ethical positions. The paper has strengths: a clear organization, a substantial reference list, and a balanced presentation of support and opposition arguments. However, its central novelty rests on an undocumented literature search and an asserted, not derived, selection of application subfields; until these are addressed, the contribution is a selective perspective rather than a comprehensive review. The refined definition is a reasonable synthesis but is not operationalized.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section I (Introduction)] The claim that no comprehensive FAI review exists is based on an unreported Google Scholar search with only the keywords 'Friendly Artificial Intelligence' or 'FAI' (Section I). The search is not reproducible: no date, database, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or screening process are given, and the authors do not discuss how they determined that none of the retrieved items is a comprehensive review. Since this gap claim motivates the paper's central contribution, it must be substantiated or the contribution must be reframed as a selective review or perspective.
  2. [Section IV and Section V.A] The contribution list in Section I includes 'Clarifying and categorising FAI-related technologies,' and Section IV presents XAI, privacy, fairness, and affective computing as 'specific applications currently in practice' without inclusion/exclusion criteria. Yet Section V.A concedes that 'it is unclear whether some current AI subfields will eventually be formally included within the FAI framework' and that 'no current research provides a systematic definition of the technical directions that should or could be included under FAI.' This direct contradiction undermines the claimed categorisation: a reader cannot tell whether the four areas are representative of FAI research or an author-selected subset. The paper should either derive the selection from a documented literature mapping or explicitly frame the review as covering selected candidate areas.
  3. [Section II (Friendly AI Definition)] Several references do not support the claims attributed to them. In Section II, the text cites 'Palacios-González [28]' for advocating recognition of AI rights, but reference [28] is Ashcroft, 'The common good and the egalitarian research imperative.' In the same section, Mittelstadt [30] is quoted as defining FAI as benefiting or not harming humanity, but reference [30] is 'Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI,' which appears to be about the limits of ethical principles rather than a definition of FAI. For a review whose value depends on accurate secondary summaries, these mismatches must be corrected and all attributions re-verified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.B.4] The paragraph ends with the unremoved editorial sentence 'This version enhances clarity, academic tone, and readability.' This artifact should be deleted.
  2. [Section VI (Conclusion)] The conclusion lists the application areas as 'XAI, privacy, and AC,' omitting fairness, which is a major subsection of Section IV. The conclusion should either mention all four areas or the omission should be explained.
  3. [References [23] and [114]] References [23] and [114] are the same paper (Schuller et al., 'Affective computing has changed: The foundation model disruption'). Duplicate references should be consolidated or distinguished.
  4. [Section II (Figure caption)] The text accompanying Figure 2 contains the typo 'demostrate' and the figure is not explicitly referenced where it appears; please fix the typo and ensure each figure is cited in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FAI review's definition and subfield taxonomy are stipulated rather than derived from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

This paper is a narrative literature review with no equations, fitted parameters, or quantitative predictions, so the main circularity patterns do not apply. Its central claims are that a comprehensive FAI review is missing, that FAI can be redefined as an initiative fostering mutual respect, understanding, and trust, and that XAI, privacy, fairness, and affective computing are relevant application areas. These are claims of scope and interpretation, not derivations. The subfield selection is explicitly an author judgment: the paper says in Section V.A, "it is unclear whether some current AI subfields will eventually be formally included within the FAI framework" and "no current research provides a systematic definition of the technical directions that should or could be included under FAI." This admission undercuts the claimed comprehensiveness, but it is a correctness or evidence weakness, not circularity, because the conclusion does not reduce to an input by construction. The gap claim in Section I rests on a two-keyword Google Scholar search, which is weak support for a negative existence claim, but again it is not circular. The paper cites several works by its own authors (e.g., Schuller et al. on affective computing, Sun et al. on XAI), but these citations are used as examples and background, not to justify the central definition or the gap claim; they are not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely renamed as a prediction. The unremoved editorial note at the end of Section III.B.4 ("This version enhances clarity, academic tone, and readability.") indicates an unfinished manuscript but has no bearing on circularity. Overall, the paper's argumentative structure is self-contained in the sense that its categories are stipulated and its advocacy follows from its own definition, which is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims are bibliographic and conceptual, not mathematical. It assumes the staged ANI-AGI-ASI narrative, the sufficiency of its literature search to prove a gap, and the accuracy of secondary ethical summaries. No free parameters or invented entities appear because the paper contains no quantitative derivation.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption AI development progresses from ANI to AGI to ASI, with AGI/ASI plausibility creating urgency for FAI.
    Section II and Figure 2 use this staged progression as the background for why FAI matters now; it is taken from prior literature [2], [11] rather than demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper A Google Scholar search for 'Friendly Artificial Intelligence' or 'FAI' establishes that no comprehensive review exists.
    Section I states the gap on this basis; the claim is load-bearing for the paper's contribution but no query date, result count, or inclusion criteria are given.
  • domain assumption The ethical frameworks surveyed (value alignment, deontology, altruism) are represented accurately by the cited secondary sources.
    Section III relies on summaries of Yudkowsky, Russell, Kant, and effective altruism without formal analysis; citation mismatches ([28], [30]) weaken this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Friendly AI: A Comprehensive Review and New Perspectives on Human-AI Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSA67NWO

@misc{pith2026241215114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Friendly AI: A Comprehensive Review and New Perspectives on Human-AI Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSA67NWO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15114}
}
read the original abstract

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to advance rapidly, Friendly AI (FAI) has been proposed to advocate for more equitable and fair development of AI. Despite its importance, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews examining FAI from an ethical perspective, as well as limited discussion on its potential applications and future directions. This paper addresses these gaps by providing a thorough review of FAI, focusing on theoretical perspectives both for and against its development, and presenting a formal definition in a clear and accessible format. Key applications are discussed from the perspectives of eXplainable AI (XAI), privacy, fairness and affective computing (AC). Additionally, the paper identifies challenges in current technological advancements and explores future research avenues. The findings emphasise the significance of developing FAI and advocate for its continued advancement to ensure ethical and beneficial AI development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of FAI. humans and AI, ensuring alignment with human values and emotional needs in all interactions and decisions. Our definition highlights the essence of friendliness in AI, emphasising on both interest and moral dimensions. However, the general concept of FAI remains a subject of intense debate, particularly between social theorists and technical practitioners. This ongoing discourse will be… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stages of AI development behaviour could be assessed for ethical compliance. Compared to utility functions, this method is more intuitive and flexible, particularly in adapting to complex moral scenarios. Building on these theories, Froding and Peterson intro- ¨ duced the concept of virtue alignment [24], extending value alignment to consider AI’s potential influence on human behaviour and character. Their ‘as-if fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Unique focuses and interconnections of trustworthy frameworks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Human-Centered AI Communication in Co-Creativity: An Initial Framework and Insights

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    FAICO organizes AI-to-human communication in co-creation into five components and reports preliminary focus-group evidence that users want feedback loops, contextual flexibility, and partner-like tone.

  2. Multi-level Value Alignment in Agentic AI Systems: Survey and Perspectives

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey proposes a macro-meso-micro value framework for agentic AI alignment and maps applications, methods, and benchmarks onto it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [28]

    The common good and the egalitarian research imperative,

    R. E. Ashcroft, “The common good and the egalitarian research imperative,” in The Oxford Handbook of Research Ethics , A. S. Iltis and D. MacKay, Eds. Oxford University Press, 2023, ch. 4, pp. 69–88. [Online]. Available: https://academic.oup.com/book/57593/ chapter-abstract/469209964?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [29]

    Problems with “friendly ai

    O. Li, “Problems with “friendly ai”,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 543–550, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-021-09595-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-021-09595-x 2021

  3. [30]

    Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical ai,

    B. Mittelstadt, “Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical ai,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 3, pp. 869–872, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-021-00051-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00051-6 2021

  4. [1]

    Y . N. Harari, Sapiens: A brief history of humankind . Random House, 2014

    2014

  5. [2]

    On the commodi- tization of artificial intelligence,

    A. A. Abonamah, M. U. Tariq, and S. Shilbayeh, “On the commodi- tization of artificial intelligence,” Frontiers in psychology , vol. 12, p. 696346, 2021

    2021

  6. [3]

    Lapan, Deep Reinforcement Learning Hands-On: Apply modern RL methods, with deep Q-networks, value iteration, policy gradients, TRPO, AlphaGo Zero and more

    M. Lapan, Deep Reinforcement Learning Hands-On: Apply modern RL methods, with deep Q-networks, value iteration, policy gradients, TRPO, AlphaGo Zero and more . Packt Publishing Ltd, 2018

    2018

  7. [4]

    A survey on evaluation of large language models,

    Y . Chang, X. Wang, J. Wang, Y . Wu, L. Yang, K. Zhu, H. Chen, X. Yi, C. Wang, Y . Wang et al. , “A survey on evaluation of large language models,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1–45, 2024

    2024

  8. [5]

    Trading through Earnings Seasons using Self-Supervised Contrastive Representation Learning

    Z. J. Ye and B. Schuller, “Trading through earnings seasons using self-supervised contrastive representation learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17392, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 119 references
  1. [6]

    Deep learning for mobile mental health: Challenges and recent advances,

    J. Han, Z. Zhang, C. Mascolo, E. Andr ´e, J. Tao, Z. Zhao, and B. W. Schuller, “Deep learning for mobile mental health: Challenges and recent advances,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 96–105, 2021. 13

    2021

  2. [7]

    Audio- based kinship verification using age domain conversion,

    Q. Sun, A. Akman, X. Jing, M. Milling, and B. W. Schuller, “Audio- based kinship verification using age domain conversion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11120, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Human-versus artificial intelligence,

    J. H. Korteling, G. C. van de Boer-Visschedijk, R. A. Blankendaal, R. C. Boonekamp, and A. R. Eikelboom, “Human-versus artificial intelligence,” Frontiers in artificial intelligence, vol. 4, p. 622364, 2021

    2021

  4. [9]

    The intelligence spectrum: Unraveling the path from ani to asi,

    S. Iqbal, “The intelligence spectrum: Unraveling the path from ani to asi,” Journal of Computing & Biomedical Informatics , vol. 7, no. 02, 2024

    2024

  5. [10]

    Creating friendly ai 1.0: The analysis and design of benevolent goal architectures,

    E. Yudkowsky, “Creating friendly ai 1.0: The analysis and design of benevolent goal architectures,”The Singularity Institute, San Francisco, USA, 2001

    2001

  6. [11]

    How far are we from agi,

    T. Feng, C. Jin, J. Liu, K. Zhu, H. Tu, Z. Cheng, G. Lin, and J. You, “How far are we from agi,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10313 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [12]

    The benefits and risks of artificial general intelligence (agi),

    M. Fahad, T. Basri, M. A. Hamza, S. Faisal, A. Akbar, U. Haider, and S. E. Hajjami, “The benefits and risks of artificial general intelligence (agi),” in Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) Security: Smart Appli- cations and Sustainable Technologies . Springer, 2024, pp. 27–52

    2024

  8. [13]

    Impossibility and uncertainty theorems in ai value alignment (or why your agi should not have a utility function),

    P. Eckersley, “Impossibility and uncertainty theorems in ai value alignment (or why your agi should not have a utility function),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00064, 2018

    1901 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Deontology and safe artificial intelligence,

    W. D’Alessandro, “Deontology and safe artificial intelligence,” Philo- sophical Studies, pp. 1–24, 2024

    2024

  10. [15]

    The meme of altruism and degrees of personhood,

    A. Stoel, “The meme of altruism and degrees of personhood,” The Transhumanism Handbook, pp. 623–629, 2019

    2019

  11. [16]

    Why friendly ais won’t be that friendly: a friendly reply to muehlhauser and bostrom,

    R. J. M. Boyles and J. J. Joaquin, “Why friendly ais won’t be that friendly: a friendly reply to muehlhauser and bostrom,” AI & Society, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 505–507, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-019-00903-0

    2020 doi

  12. [18]

    Friendly ai will still be our master. or, why we should not want to be the pets of super-intelligent computers,

    R. Sparrow, “Friendly ai will still be our master. or, why we should not want to be the pets of super-intelligent computers,” AI & Society , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-023-01698-x

    2024 doi

  13. [19]

    Audio explainable artificial intelli- gence: A review,

    A. Akman and B. W. Schuller, “Audio explainable artificial intelli- gence: A review,” Intelligent Computing, vol. 2, p. 0074, 2024

    2024

  14. [20]

    Smart contract privacy protection using ai in cyber-physical systems: tools, techniques and challenges,

    R. Gupta, S. Tanwar, F. Al-Turjman, P. Italiya, A. Nauman, and S. W. Kim, “Smart contract privacy protection using ai in cyber-physical systems: tools, techniques and challenges,” IEEE access , vol. 8, pp. 24 746–24 772, 2020

    2020

  15. [21]

    A survey and guideline on privacy enhancing technologies for collaborative machine learning,

    E. U. Soykan, L. Karacay, F. Karakoc, and E. Tomur, “A survey and guideline on privacy enhancing technologies for collaborative machine learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 97 495–97 519, 2022

    2022

  16. [22]

    Fairness and underspecification in acoustic scene classification: The case for disaggregated evaluations,

    A. Triantafyllopoulos, M. Milling, K. Drossos, and B. W. Schuller, “Fairness and underspecification in acoustic scene classification: The case for disaggregated evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01506 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Friendly ai,

    B. Fr ¨oding and M. Peterson, “Friendly ai,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 23, pp. 207–214, 2021

    2021

  18. [25]

    Asimov, I, Robot

    I. Asimov, I, Robot. New York, NY: Gnome Press, 1950, first appeared in the short story ”Runaround,” published in 1942

    1950

  19. [26]

    The ethics of ai and robotics: Principles, tools, and issues,

    D. Jordana, “The ethics of ai and robotics: Principles, tools, and issues,” Ethics and Information Technology , vol. 23, pp. 29–41,

  20. [27]

    Asimov’s “three laws of robotics

    S. L. Anderson, “Asimov’s “three laws of robotics” and machine metaethics,” AI & Society , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 477–493,

  21. [31]

    Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk,

    E. Yudkowsky et al., “Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk,” Global catastrophic risks, vol. 1, no. 303, p. 184, 2008

    2008

  22. [32]

    The case for animal-friendly ai,

    S. Ghose and collaborators, “The case for animal-friendly ai,” arXiv preprint, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01199

    2024 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Ai ethics: The case for including animals,

    P. Singer and B. Tse, “Ai ethics: The case for including animals,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 24, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-022-00187-z

    2022 doi

  24. [34]

    Coherent extrapolated volition,

    E. Yudkowsky, “Coherent extrapolated volition,” Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence , 2004

    2004

  25. [35]

    Corrigi- bility,

    N. Soares, B. Fallenstein, S. Armstrong, and E. Yudkowsky, “Corrigi- bility,” in Workshops at the twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2015

    2015

  26. [36]

    Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment,

    I. Gabriel, “Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment,” Minds and machines, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 411–437, 2020

    2020

  27. [37]

    Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence,

    S. Russell, D. Dewey, and M. Tegmark, “Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence,” AI magazine, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 105–114, 2015

    2015

  28. [38]

    Russell, Human compatible: AI and the problem of control

    S. Russell, Human compatible: AI and the problem of control. Penguin Uk, 2019

    2019

  29. [39]

    The value alignment problem: a geometric approach,

    M. Peterson, “The value alignment problem: a geometric approach,” Ethics and Information Technology , vol. 21, pp. 19–28, 2019

    2019

  30. [40]

    Hail mary, value porosity, and utility diversification,

    N. Bostrom, “Hail mary, value porosity, and utility diversification,” 2014

    2014

  31. [41]

    Duty, kant, and deontology,

    D. Misselbrook, “Duty, kant, and deontology,” British Journal of General Practice, vol. 63, no. 609, pp. 211–211, 2013

    2013

  32. [42]

    Kantian deontology meets ai align- ment: Towards morally robust fairness metrics,

    C. Mougan and J. Brand, “Kantian deontology meets ai align- ment: Towards morally robust fairness metrics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05227, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Toward non-intuition-based machine and artificial intelligence ethics: A deontological approach based on modal logic,

    J. N. Hooker and T. W. N. Kim, “Toward non-intuition-based machine and artificial intelligence ethics: A deontological approach based on modal logic,” in Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , ser. AIES ’18. New York, NY , USA: Association for...

    2018

  34. [44]

    Altruism,

    R. Kraut, “Altruism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Fall 2020 ed., E. N. Zalta, Ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2020

    2020

  35. [45]

    Altruistic collective intelligence for the betterment of artificial intelligence,

    T. Maillart, L. Gomez, M. Sharada, D. Chakraborty, and S. Nana- vati, “Altruistic collective intelligence for the betterment of artificial intelligence,” in The Routledge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Philanthropy. Routledge, 2024, pp. 344–360

    2024

  36. [46]

    The definition of effective altruism,

    W. MacAskill, “The definition of effective altruism,” Effective altruism: Philosophical issues, vol. 2016, no. 7, p. 10, 2019

    2016

  37. [47]

    Barriers to implication,

    G. Restall and G. Russell, “Barriers to implication,” in A Companion to Philosophical Logic, D. Jacquette, Ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 243–257. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444310795. ch13

    2010 doi

  38. [48]

    The ethics of artificial intelligence,

    N. Bostrom and E. Yudkowsky, “The ethics of artificial intelligence,” in Artificial intelligence safety and security . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018, pp. 57–69

    2018

  39. [49]

    The ethics of artificial intelligence: Issues and initiatives,

    E. Bird, J. Fox-Skelly, N. Jenner, R. Larbey, E. Weitkamp, and A. Winfield, “The ethics of artificial intelligence: Issues and initiatives,” European Parliamentary Research Service, Study PE 634.452, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ STU...

    2020

  40. [50]

    A utilitarian paradox,

    F. Kroon, “A utilitarian paradox,” Analysis, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 107–112,

  41. [51]

    Social robots and the risks to reciprocity,

    A. van Wynsberghe, “Social robots and the risks to reciprocity,” AI & Society , vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 479–485, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-021-01207-y

    2022 doi

  42. [52]

    Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    I. Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Harper & Row, 1785, translated by H. J. Paton in 1948, original publication 1785

    1948

  43. [53]

    Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies

    N. Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014

    2014

  44. [54]

    Friendly artificial intelligence: the physics challenge,

    M. Tegmark, “Friendly artificial intelligence: the physics challenge,”

  45. [55]

    The eu approach to ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence,

    N. A. Smuha, “The eu approach to ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence,” Computer Law Review International , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 97–106, 2019

    2019

  46. [56]

    Dignum, Responsible artificial intelligence: how to develop and use AI in a responsible way

    V . Dignum, Responsible artificial intelligence: how to develop and use AI in a responsible way . Springer, 2019, vol. 2156

    2019

  47. [57]

    Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical ai,

    B. Mittelstadt, “Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical ai,” Nature machine intelligence, vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 501–507, 2019. 14

    2019

  48. [58]

    Concrete problems in ai safety,

    D. Amodei, C. Olah, J. Steinhardt, P. Christiano, J. Schulman, and D. Man ´e, “Concrete problems in ai safety,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Darpa’s explainable artificial intelligence (xai) program,

    D. Gunning and D. Aha, “Darpa’s explainable artificial intelligence (xai) program,” AI magazine, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 44–58, 2019

    2019

  50. [60]

    Explainable artificial intelligence for medical applications: A review,

    Q. Sun, A. Akman, and B. W. Schuller, “Explainable artificial intelligence for medical applications: A review,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01829

    2024 arXiv

  51. [61]

    ” why should i trust you?

    M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, “” why should i trust you?” explaining the predictions of any classifier,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 2016, pp. 1135–1144

    2016

  52. [62]

    Develop- ing the sensitivity of lime for better machine learning explanation,

    E. Lee, D. Braines, M. Stiffler, A. Hudler, and D. Harborne, “Develop- ing the sensitivity of lime for better machine learning explanation,” in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Operations Applications, vol. 11006. SPIE, 2019, pp. 349–356

    2019

  53. [63]

    Shapley values for feature selection: The good, the bad, and the axioms,

    D. Fryer, I. Str ¨umke, and H. Nguyen, “Shapley values for feature selection: The good, the bad, and the axioms,” Ieee Access , vol. 9, pp. 144 352–144 360, 2021

    2021

  54. [64]

    Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,

    R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2017, pp. 618–626

    2017

  55. [65]

    On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier deci- sions by layer-wise relevance propagation,

    S. Bach, A. Binder, G. Montavon, F. Klauschen, K.-R. M ¨uller, and W. Samek, “On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier deci- sions by layer-wise relevance propagation,” PloS one , vol. 10, no. 7, p. e0130140, 2015

    2015

  56. [66]

    From” where

    R. Achtibat, M. Dreyer, I. Eisenbraun, S. Bosse, T. Wiegand, W. Samek, and S. Lapuschkin, “From” where” to” what”: Towards human- understandable explanations through concept relevance propagation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03208 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Privacy-preserving machine learning: Methods, challenges and directions,

    R. Xu, N. Baracaldo, and J. Joshi, “Privacy-preserving machine learning: Methods, challenges and directions,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04417

    2021 arXiv

  58. [68]

    Guardml: Efficient privacy-preserving machine learning services through hybrid homomorphic encryption,

    E. Frimpong, K. Nguyen, M. Budzys, T. Khan, and A. Michalas, “Guardml: Efficient privacy-preserving machine learning services through hybrid homomorphic encryption,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14840

    2024 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Federated learning with differential privacy,

    A. Banse, J. Kreischer, and X. O. i J ¨urgens, “Federated learning with differential privacy,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2402.02230

    2024 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Privacy preserving machine learning with federated personalized learning in artificially generated environment,

    M. T. Hosain, M. R. Abir, M. Y . Rahat, M. F. Mridha, and S. H. Mukta, “Privacy preserving machine learning with federated personalized learning in artificially generated environment,” IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society , vol. 5, pp. 694–704, 2024

    2024

  61. [71]

    Differential privacy and machine learning: a survey and review,

    Z. Ji, Z. C. Lipton, and C. Elkan, “Differential privacy and machine learning: a survey and review,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7584

    2014 arXiv

  62. [72]

    A novel user centric privacy mech- anism in cyber physical system,

    M. K. Yogi and A. Chakravarthy, “A novel user centric privacy mech- anism in cyber physical system,” Computers & Security , p. 104163, 2024

    2024

  63. [73]

    A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,

    N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan, “A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1–35, 2021

    2021

  64. [74]

    Enrolment-based personalisa- tion for improving individual-level fairness in speech emotion recog- nition,

    A. Triantafyllopoulos and B. Schuller, “Enrolment-based personalisa- tion for improving individual-level fairness in speech emotion recog- nition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06665 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  65. [75]

    Resampling strategy for mitigating unfairness in face attribute classification,

    D. Kim, S. Park, S. Hwang, M. Ki, S. Jeon, and H. Byun, “Resampling strategy for mitigating unfairness in face attribute classification,” in 2020 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 399–402

    2020

  66. [76]

    On data augmentation for gan training,

    N.-T. Tran, V .-H. Tran, N.-B. Nguyen, T.-K. Nguyen, and N.-M. Cheung, “On data augmentation for gan training,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 30, pp. 1882–1897, 2021

    2021

  67. [77]

    Attainability and optimality: The equalized odds fairness revisited,

    Z. Tang and K. Zhang, “Attainability and optimality: The equalized odds fairness revisited,” in Conference on Causal Learning and Rea- soning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 754–786

    2022

  68. [78]

    Improving the fairness of deep gen- erative models without retraining,

    S. Tan, Y . Shen, and B. Zhou, “Improving the fairness of deep gen- erative models without retraining,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.04842 , 2020

    2012 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Fairness through awareness,

    C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and R. Zemel, “Fairness through awareness,” inProceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference , 2012, pp. 214–226

    2012

  70. [80]

    Accurate fairness: Improving individual fair- ness without trading accuracy,

    X. Li, P. Wu, and J. Su, “Accurate fairness: Improving individual fair- ness without trading accuracy,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 37, no. 12, 2023, pp. 14 312–14 320

    2023

  71. [81]

    Net benefit, calibration, threshold selection, and training objectives for algorithmic fairness in healthcare,

    S. Pfohl, Y . Xu, A. Foryciarz, N. Ignatiadis, J. Genkins, and N. Shah, “Net benefit, calibration, threshold selection, and training objectives for algorithmic fairness in healthcare,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 20...

    2022

  72. [82]

    R. W. Picard, Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997

    1997

  73. [83]

    Felt, false, and miserable smiles,

    P. Ekman and W. V . Friesen, “Felt, false, and miserable smiles,”Journal of Nonverbal Behavior , vol. 6, pp. 238–252, 1982

    1982

  74. [84]

    Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1978

    ——, Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1978

    1978

  75. [85]

    Hidden markov model-based speech emotion recognition,

    B. Schuller, G. Rigoll, and M. Lang, “Hidden markov model-based speech emotion recognition,” in 2003 IEEE International Confer- ence on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceed- ings.(ICASSP’03)., vol. 2. Ieee, 2003, pp. II–1

    2003

  76. [86]

    Biofeedback systems: Ap- plications in autonomic control for therapeutic settings,

    S. Hengameh, S. Sadjadi, and A. Zadeh, “Biofeedback systems: Ap- plications in autonomic control for therapeutic settings,” Journal of Biofeedback and Relaxation Techniques , vol. 45, pp. 156–168, 2015

    2015

  77. [87]

    A systematic review on affective computing: Emotion models, databases, and recent advances,

    Y . Wang, W. Song, W. Tao, A. Liotta, D. Yang, X. Li, S. Gao, Y . Sun, W. Ge, W. Zhang, and W. Zhang, “A systematic review on affective computing: Emotion models, databases, and recent advances,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.06935

    2022 arXiv

  78. [88]

    A survey on affective computing for psychological emotion recognition,

    V . S. Bakkialakshmi and T. Sudalaimuthu, “A survey on affective computing for psychological emotion recognition,” in 2021 5th In- ternational Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computer Technologies and Optimization Techniques (ICEECCOT) , 2021, pp. 480–486

    2021

  79. [89]

    A review on five recent and near- future developments in computational processing of emotion in the human voice,

    D. M. Schuller and B. W. Schuller, “A review on five recent and near- future developments in computational processing of emotion in the human voice,” Emotion Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 44–50, 2021

    2021

  80. [90]

    Affective computing and emotion-sensing technology for emotion recognition,

    Y . Wang et al., “Affective computing and emotion-sensing technology for emotion recognition,” in Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Additive Manufacturing. Springer, 2021, pp. 281–299. [Online]. Avail- able: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-70111-6 16

    2021 doi

  81. [91]

    Multimodal emotion recognition in audiovisual communication,

    B. Schuller, M. Lang, and G. Rigoll, “Multimodal emotion recognition in audiovisual communication,” in Proceedings. IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo, vol. 1. IEEE, 2002, pp. 745–748

    2002

  82. [92]

    Multiemo: An attention-based correlation- aware multimodal fusion framework for emotion recognition in conver- sations,

    T. Shi and S.-L. Huang, “Multiemo: An attention-based correlation- aware multimodal fusion framework for emotion recognition in conver- sations,” in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , 2023, pp. 14 7...

    2023

  83. [93]

    Mlgat: Multi-layer graph attention networks for multimodal emotion recogni- tion in conversations,

    J. Wu, J. Wu, Y . Zheng, P. Zhan, M. Han, G. Zuo, and L. Yang, “Mlgat: Multi-layer graph attention networks for multimodal emotion recogni- tion in conversations,” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems , pp. 1–17, 2024

    2024

  84. [94]

    Multimodal user state and trait recognition: An overview,

    B. Schuller, “Multimodal user state and trait recognition: An overview,” The Handbook of Multimodal-Multisensor Interfaces: Signal Process- ing, Architectures, and Detection of Emotion and Cognition-Volume 2 , pp. 129–165, 2018

    2018

  85. [95]

    Zatarain Cabada et al

    R. Zatarain Cabada et al. , Multimodal Affective Computing: Technologies and Applications in Learning Environments . Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer. com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-32542-7

    2023 doi

  86. [96]

    Affective computing for healthcare: Recent trends, applications, chal- lenges, and beyond,

    Y . Liu, K. Wang, L. Wei, J. Chen, Y . Zhan, D. Tao, and Z. Chen, “Affective computing for healthcare: Recent trends, applications, chal- lenges, and beyond,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13589 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  87. [97]

    A review of emotion recognition using physiological signals,

    L. Shu, J. Xie, M. Yang, Z. Li, Z. Li, D. Liao, X. Xu, and X. Yang, “A review of emotion recognition using physiological signals,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 7, p. 2074, 2018

    2018

  88. [98]

    Emotion recognition for healthcare surveillance systems using neural networks: A survey,

    M. Dhuheir, A. Albaseer, E. Baccour, A. Erbad, M. Abdallah, and M. Hamdi, “Emotion recognition for healthcare surveillance systems using neural networks: A survey,” in 2021 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 681–687

    2021

  89. [99]

    A curriculum learning approach for pain intensity recognition from facial expres- sions,

    A. Mallol-Ragolta, S. Liu, N. Cummins, and B. Schuller, “A curriculum learning approach for pain intensity recognition from facial expres- sions,” in 2020 15th IEEE international conference on automatic face and gesture recognition (FG 2020) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 829–833

    2020

  90. [100]

    An emotion recognition model based on facial recognition in virtual learning environment,

    D. Yang, A. Alsadoon, P. C. Prasad, A. K. Singh, and A. Elchouemi, “An emotion recognition model based on facial recognition in virtual learning environment,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 125, pp. 2–10, 2018

    2018

  91. [101]

    Facial emotion recognition of students using convolutional neural network,

    I. Lasri, A. R. Solh, and M. El Belkacemi, “Facial emotion recognition of students using convolutional neural network,” in 2019 third inter- national conference on intelligent computing in data sciences (ICDS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6. 15

    2019

  92. [102]

    Emo- tion recognition for education using sentiment analysis

    M. L. Barron-Estrada, R. Zatarain-Cabada, and R. O. Bustillos, “Emo- tion recognition for education using sentiment analysis.” Res. Comput. Sci., vol. 148, no. 5, pp. 71–80, 2019

    2019

  93. [103]

    Emotional speech synthesis: A review,

    M. Schr ¨oder, “Emotional speech synthesis: A review,” in Seventh European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology , 2001

    2001

  94. [104]

    Bridging computer and education sciences: a systematic review of automated emotion recognition in online learning environments,

    S. Yu, A. Androsov, H. Yan, and Y . Chen, “Bridging computer and education sciences: a systematic review of automated emotion recognition in online learning environments,” Computers & Education, p. 105111, 2024

    2024

  95. [105]

    Research on brain-computer interfaces in the entertainment field,

    D. de Queiroz Cavalcanti, F. Melo, T. Silva, M. Falc ˜ao, M. Caval- canti, and V . Becker, “Research on brain-computer interfaces in the entertainment field,” in International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 2023, pp. 404–415

    2023

  96. [106]

    Decoding emotions: Intelligent visual perception for movie image classification using sustainable ai in entertainment computing,

    P. Huang, “Decoding emotions: Intelligent visual perception for movie image classification using sustainable ai in entertainment computing,” Entertainment Computing, vol. 50, p. 100696, 2024

    2024

  97. [107]

    Application of entertainment e-learning mode based on genetic algorithm and facial emotion recognition in environmental art and design courses,

    S. Li, “Application of entertainment e-learning mode based on genetic algorithm and facial emotion recognition in environmental art and design courses,” Entertainment Computing, vol. 52, p. 100798, 2025

    2025

  98. [108]

    Emotion recognition for human-robot interaction: Recent advances and future perspectives,

    M. Spezialetti, G. Placidi, and S. Rossi, “Emotion recognition for human-robot interaction: Recent advances and future perspectives,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 7, p. 532279, 2020

    2020

  99. [109]

    Survey of emotions in human–robot interactions: Perspectives from robotic psychology on 20 years of research,

    R. Stock-Homburg, “Survey of emotions in human–robot interactions: Perspectives from robotic psychology on 20 years of research,” Inter- national Journal of Social Robotics , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 389–411, 2022

    2022

  100. [110]

    Automatic emotion recognition in robot-children interaction for asd treatment,

    M. Leo, M. Del Coco, P. Carcagni, C. Distante, M. Bernava, G. Pioggia, and G. Palestra, “Automatic emotion recognition in robot-children interaction for asd treatment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops , 2015, pp. 145–153

    2015

  101. [111]

    Intelligent facial emotion recognition and semantic-based topic detection for a humanoid robot,

    L. Zhang, M. Jiang, D. Farid, and M. A. Hossain, “Intelligent facial emotion recognition and semantic-based topic detection for a humanoid robot,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 40, no. 13, pp. 5160– 5168, 2013

    2013

  102. [112]

    Emotion and sociable humanoid robots,

    C. Breazeal, “Emotion and sociable humanoid robots,” International journal of human-computer studies , vol. 59, no. 1-2, pp. 119–155, 2003

    2003

  103. [113]

    The interspeech 2013 computational paralinguistics challenge: Social signals, conflict, emotion, autism,

    B. Schuller, S. Steidl, A. Batliner, A. Vinciarelli, K. Scherer, F. Ringeval, M. Chetouani, F. Weninger, F. Eyben, E. Marchi et al. , “The interspeech 2013 computational paralinguistics challenge: Social signals, conflict, emotion, autism,” in Proceedings INTERSPEECH 2013, 14t...

    2013

  104. [114]

    Affective computing has changed: The foundation model disruption,

    B. Schuller, A. Mallol-Ragolta, A. P. Almansa, I. Tsangko, M. M. Amin, A. Semertzidou, L. Christ, and S. Amiriparian, “Affective computing has changed: The foundation model disruption,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08907, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  105. [115]

    Embodied empathy: Using affective computing to incarnate human emotion and cognition in ar- chitecture,

    M. Ghandi, M. Blaisdell, and M. Ismail, “Embodied empathy: Using affective computing to incarnate human emotion and cognition in ar- chitecture,” International Journal of Architectural Computing , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 532–552, 2021

    2021

  106. [116]

    The future impact of artificial intelligence on humans and human rights,

    S. Livingston and M. Risse, “The future impact of artificial intelligence on humans and human rights,” Ethics & international affairs , vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 141–158, 2019

    2019

  107. [117]

    Large language model alignment: A survey,

    T. Shen, R. Jin, Y . Huang, C. Liu, W. Dong, Z. Guo, X. Wu, Y . Liu, and D. Xiong, “Large language model alignment: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15025, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  108. [1981]

    Available: https://philpapers.org/rec/KROAUP

    [Online]. Available: https://philpapers.org/rec/KROAUP

  109. [2008]

    Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s00146-007-0094-5

    [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s00146-007-0094-5

  110. [2014]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0813

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0813

    arXiv

  111. [2021]

    Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s10676-020-09556-w

    [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s10676-020-09556-w

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.