Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Adaptive XAI in High Stakes Environments: Modeling Swift Trust with Multimodal Feedback in Human AI Teams

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a closed-loop framework that reads operator stress, workload, and emotion from physiological signals and uses the inferred trust state to modulate AI explanations in high-stakes teaming.

desk verdict Useful conceptual blueprint for adaptive XAI, weakened by overstated claims and a fixable inconsistency in the fuzzy rule base. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21158 v1 pith:6XRQQSL5 submitted 2025-07-25 cs.AI cs.HC

Nishani Fernando , Bahareh Nakisa , Adnan Ahmad , Mohammad Naim Rastgoo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.HC
keywords AdaptiveExplainabilitySwiftTrustHuman-AITeamingImplicitFeedbackPhysiologicalSensingFuzzyInferenceMultimodalHigh-StakesDecisionMaking
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 argues that explainable AI in high-stakes settings, such as emergency response, should not hand every operator the same explanation; it should watch the operator and adapt. The proposed adaptive explainability trust framework (AXTF) reads physiological and behavioral signals—EEG, ECG/HRV, eye tracking, facial expressions—to infer workload, stress, and emotional valence in real time, then uses a fuzzy rule-based trust model to adjust explanation timing, duration, granularity, content, transparency, and delivery mode. The aim is to build and calibrate swift trust without demanding explicit feedback from an overloaded human. If the framework works as described, AI teammates could sense confusion or overload and proactively simplify, reassure, or detail their reasoning in the middle of a crisis. The paper is conceptual: it specifies the loop and its rules, but does not yet run an experiment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Adaptive Explainability Trust Framework (AXTF), a closed-loop pipeline with three coupled components: multimodal sensing (EEG, ECG/GSR/HRV, gaze, facial and vocal cues), a multi-objective neurofuzzy trust inference engine, and an explanation feature modulator. The trust engine maps four inputs—workload $W$, stress $S$, emotion valence $E$, and performance $P$—through triangular membership functions and a fixed rule table (Table 3) to a categorical trust estimate $T\in\{\text{Low},\text{Medium},\text{High}\}$. That estimate then selects among seven explanation features (timing, duration, granularity, content, transparency, adaptability, delivery mode), e.g., short proactive audio alerts for high stress and low trust, detailed interactive visualizations when trust is high and load is low.

What would settle it

Run a simulated emergency-response task with operators wearing EEG, ECG, and eye-tracking sensors, and compare AXTF-driven adaptive explanations against static explanations on measures of self-reported trust, cognitive load, and task performance; the framework is falsified if the adaptive condition does not improve trust or performance. A more targeted test collects concurrent physiological features, performance scores, and self-reported trust from operators during a high-pressure task and checks whether the Table 3 rule 'IF W=High AND S=High AND E=Negative THEN T=Low' systematically holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that explainability can be turned into a closed-loop, trust-calibrating mechanism: physical signals reveal the operator's cognitive and affective state, a multi-objective trust model converts those states into a dynamic trust estimate (Low, Medium, or High), and that estimate modulates which explanation the AI gives next. The paper encodes this in a fuzzy inference system whose rules, e.g., IF workload is High AND stress is High AND emotion is Negative THEN trust is Low, are grounded in literature on trust in automation. The framework reframes explanation not as a static artifact but as an adaptive communication strategy that balances transparency, cognitive efficiency, and trust calibration under time pressure.

Load-bearing premise

The whole loop depends on the assumption that physiological signals such as EEG, ECG, and eye tracking can be classified in real time into workload, stress, and emotional valence accurately enough, and that these states actually drive trust in the way Table 3 encodes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In high-stakes human-AI teams, explanations should be delivered proactively or reactively based on the inferred state of the operator, not as a fixed text block.
  • Trust can be treated as a continuously estimated variable that drives explanation adaptation, enabling trust repair rather than just trust measurement.
  • Non-intrusive physiological sensing can replace explicit user feedback, making adaptive XAI feasible when the operator's hands, eyes, and voice are occupied.
  • Explanation granularity, duration, and modality should be tuned to the operator's current cognitive load, e.g., 2–3 second audio confirmations under high load, longer layered explanations when load is low.
  • If realized, the framework would support both trust calibration and situation awareness in time-sensitive domains like emergency response and mission-critical decision support.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test bed is a simulated search-and-rescue drone task where operators wear EEG/ECG/eye trackers and explanations are toggled between AXTF-adaptive and static; the framework predicts lower self-reported cognitive load and higher behavioral trust in the adaptive condition.
  • The fuzzy rule table in Table 3 is falsifiable in the small: collecting ground-truth ratings of workload, stress, valence, performance, and trust during a simulated crisis would confirm or refute the seven rules, and could show that trust depends on factors beyond these four inputs.
  • Because the loop closes through the human, one subtle risk is a self-reinforcing cycle: an adaptation that reduces stress changes the physiology the system reads, so the trust estimate and subsequent explanation may chase the operator's state rather than track system performance; the paper does not analyze this feedback dynamics, but it is directly testable.
  • The framework could be extended to multi-human teams where the trust estimate is aggregated across operators, or to autonomous vehicles and medical triage, which face similar time-critical explainability demands.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AXTF, a conceptual framework for adaptive explainable AI in high-stakes human-AI teams. It proposes a closed-loop architecture in which physiological and behavioral signals (EEG, ECG, GSR, eye tracking) are classified into workload, stress, and emotional valence; a fuzzy rule-based engine (Table 3) then estimates trust (Low/Medium/High) from these states and a system performance score; and the trust estimate modulates explanation features such as timing, duration, granularity, content, transparency, adaptability, and mode of delivery. The stated goal is to promote swift trust, reduce cognitive overload, and improve decision-making. The manuscript is explicitly a conceptual proposal: it contains no implementation, simulation, or empirical study, and Section 4 acknowledges that validation in interactive environments remains future work.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine and timely problem: static, one-size-fits-all XAI and the reliance on explicit human feedback are ill-suited to high-pressure, time-critical human-AI collaboration. The idea of using implicit physiological signals to drive trust-calibrated explanation adaptation is well motivated and the related-work synthesis is useful. If the framework were formally specified and empirically validated, it could provide a valuable foundation for affective, situated XAI. However, the contribution as it stands is a conceptual sketch rather than a working model: the central trust inference engine has an internal inconsistency, the causal claims in the abstract and Section 3 are not supported by any evidence in the paper, and key inference-layer assumptions are unexamined. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, but they currently prevent the paper from fully supporting its stated contributions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 3] The fuzzy rule base is internally inconsistent. Rule 2 states that IF S = Low AND E = Positive AND P > 0.8 THEN T = High; Rule 6 states that IF W = High OR E = Negative THEN T = Low. For an input state with W = High, S = Low, E = Positive, and P > 0.8, both rules fire and prescribe contradictory trust outputs (High and Low). The manuscript does not specify any conflict-resolution scheme, rule weighting, aggregation operator, or defuzzification method, so the trust estimate is undefined for such states. Because this rule base is the core inference engine of the framework, the model is not well specified. The authors should either revise the rules to eliminate overlap, add a priority ordering, or specify a concrete fuzzy inference procedure (e.g., Mamdani min-max inference with centroid defuzzification) that resolves conflicting rule outputs.
  2. [Section 3.2, membership functions and Table 3] The fuzzy rules mix crisp thresholds on the performance variable with fuzzy membership functions. The text defines fuzzy sets Low, Medium, and High for system performance P with the displayed membership functions, but Rules 2, 4, and 5 use numeric thresholds (P > 0.8, P > 0.6, P < 0.4) rather than linguistic terms such as 'P = High' or 'P = Low'. This is formally inconsistent: either P should be fuzzified and the rules should refer to the fuzzy sets, or the threshold-based rules should be stated in crisp terms. The current presentation leaves the semantics of the fuzzy inference engine ambiguous and should be clarified.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3] The paper makes causal claims about the framework's effects, stating that it 'reduces cognitive overload, enhances trust, and improves decision-making' and that it 'promotes swift trust.' No implementation, simulation, or empirical evaluation is provided, and Section 4 itself states that 'implementation and evaluation ... will be essential to validate the framework.' These claims should be reframed as design goals or hypotheses, with an explicit statement that they are not yet demonstrated. Otherwise the abstract and Section 3 overstate the evidence in a way that could mislead readers about the maturity of the work.
  4. [Section 3.1] The framework assumes that physiological and behavioral signals can be non-intrusively classified in real time into workload, stress, and emotional valence with sufficient accuracy to drive trust estimation. The manuscript does not discuss the expected accuracy, latency, or robustness of such classifiers in high-stakes, dynamic environments, nor does it consider how classification errors would propagate into the trust estimates and explanation adaptations. Since this inference layer is the input to the entire framework, the paper should include a more critical assessment of the evidence for this premise and the conditions under which the framework would fail.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title page footnote] The footnote contains a malformed email address and an unusual symbol ('envel⌢pe-⌢pennlfernando11@gmail.com'); this should be corrected to a clean institutional or personal email.
  2. [References] Several references are incomplete or have formatting issues, for example reference [13] has '????' in place of the publication year, and reference [20] has a duplicated 'doi: 10.1080/15472450.2022.2140046' string. The reference list should be cleaned up.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced in the text but is not visible in the provided manuscript; the authors should ensure that the figure is included and that its callouts (e.g., 'closes the loop') are legible and consistent with the text.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors and missing spaces, for example 'responsive teammate' should be 'a responsive teammate' and several sentences have missing words or broken spacing. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AXTF is a literature-grounded conceptual framework with no fitted parameters, and its trust-to-explanation link is an untested hypothesis rather than a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper does not derive any empirical prediction from fitted inputs. AXTF is explicitly a conceptual framework, and Section 4 defers validation to future simulation and interactive studies, stating that 'implementation and evaluation in interactive, dynamic environments... will be essential to validate the framework.' The fuzzy trust rules in Table 3 are grounded in external empirical literature (e.g., Hancock et al. [5], Endsley [16], Paleja et al. [15]) and are not derived from the paper's own conclusions; no parameters are fitted to any dataset, and no equation defines the claimed outcome in terms of the explanation-adaptation mechanism it is supposed to support. The self-citations ([10], [20], [21], [32], [33]) support the feasibility of physiological emotion and stress inference, but they are not load-bearing: they are supplemented by independent sources and do not establish the central trust-explainability link, which is presented as a design assumption rather than a derived result. The internal rule conflicts in Table 3 (e.g., Rule 6 forcing Low trust whenever W = High while Rule 2 can force High trust for the same state) are an underspecification or correctness issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-selected fuzzy design parameters and on empirical mappings from sensors to cognitive and affective states, and from those states to trust. These mappings are supported by cited correlational studies but are not validated in this paper. The fuzzy thresholds and rule constants are free parameters that directly shape the trust estimate. No physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond the named framework and its components.

free parameters (4)
  • Workload/stress triangular membership breakpoints (0.2, 0.5, 0.8)
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2; no calibration or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Emotion valence membership breakpoints (-0.5, -0.1, 0.1, 0.5)
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2; no empirical fitting or validation is provided.
  • System performance membership breakpoints (0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8)
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2; the thresholds affect the trust output directly.
  • Fuzzy rule thresholds in Table 3 (P>0.8, P>0.6, P<0.4)
    Hand-specified constants in the rule base; alternative values would change trust estimates and therefore explanation adaptations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Physiological signals can be mapped to workload, stress, and valence states with sufficient real-time accuracy.
    Section 3.1 assumes EEG, ECG, GSR, gaze, facial, and voice features classify into discrete states; cited literature supports correlations, but accuracy under high-stakes time pressure is unproven.
  • domain assumption Inferred workload, stress, and valence are causally linked to trust dynamics.
    Section 2.2 and Table 3 encode this causal mapping based on meta-analyses such as Hancock et al., but effect sizes vary by context and are not established for swifts trust in ad hoc teams.
  • domain assumption Adapting explanations based on trust estimates increases trust and reduces cognitive load.
    Section 3.3 posits the closed-loop benefit without direct evidence; the paper's future-work section explicitly defers evaluation.
  • ad hoc to paper The fuzzy rule set in Table 3 is complete and consistent for trust estimation.
    The rules are selected for interpretability and literature grounding, but they are not learned, optimized, or validated against human trust ratings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive XAI in High Stakes Environments: Modeling Swift Trust with Multimodal Feedback in Human AI Teams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XRQQSL5

@misc{pith2026250721158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive XAI in High Stakes Environments: Modeling Swift Trust with Multimodal Feedback in Human AI Teams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XRQQSL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21158}
}
read the original abstract

Effective human-AI teaming heavily depends on swift trust, particularly in high-stakes scenarios such as emergency response, where timely and accurate decision-making is critical. In these time-sensitive and cognitively demanding settings, adaptive explainability is essential for fostering trust between human operators and AI systems. However, existing explainable AI (XAI) approaches typically offer uniform explanations and rely heavily on explicit feedback mechanisms, which are often impractical in such high-pressure scenarios. To address this gap, we propose a conceptual framework for adaptive XAI that operates non-intrusively by responding to users' real-time cognitive and emotional states through implicit feedback, thereby enhancing swift trust in high-stakes environments. The proposed adaptive explainability trust framework (AXTF) leverages physiological and behavioral signals, such as EEG, ECG, and eye tracking, to infer user states and support explanation adaptation. At its core is a multi-objective, personalized trust estimation model that maps workload, stress, and emotion to dynamic trust estimates. These estimates guide the modulation of explanation features enabling responsive and personalized support that promotes swift trust in human-AI collaboration. This conceptual framework establishes a foundation for developing adaptive, non-intrusive XAI systems tailored to the rigorous demands of high-pressure, time-sensitive environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Adaptive Explainability Trust Framework (AXTF). The framework supports swift trust formation by dynamically adjusting explanation features—timing, duration, and granularity—based on the user’s cognitive load, emotions, and performance. This adaptive explainability reduces cognitive overload, enhances trust, and improves decision-making. The proposed framework ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. X. Lim, Cognitive Human-Machine Interfaces and Interactions for Avionics Systems, Phd thesis, RMIT University, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.25439/rmt.27601791. doi:10.25439/rmt. 27601791

    work page doi:10.25439/rmt.27601791 2021

  2. [2]

    Dehais, A

    F. Dehais, A. Duprès, S. Blum, N. Drougard, S. Scannella, R. N. Roy, F. Lotte, Monitoring pilot’s mental workload using erps and spectral power with a six-dry-electrode eeg system in real flight conditions, Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 19 (2019). URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 83462067

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Rodriguez Rodriguez, C

    L. Rodriguez Rodriguez, C. E. Bustamante Orellana, E. K. Chiou, L. Huang, N. Cooke, Y. Kang, A review of mathematical models of human trust in automation, Frontiers in Neuroergonomics Volume 4 - 2023 (2023). URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroergonomics/articles/10. 3389/fnrgo.2023.1171403. doi:10.3389/fnrgo.2023.1171403

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Meyerson, K

    D. Meyerson, K. E. Weick, R. M. Kramer, Swift trust and temporary groups, Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, US, 1996, pp. 166–195. URL: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n9. doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n9

    work page doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n9 1996

  5. [5]

    P. A. Hancock, D. R. Billings, K. E. Schaefer, J. Y. C. Chen, E. J. de Visser, R. Parasuraman, A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction, Human Factors 53 (2011) 517–527. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018720811417254. doi:10.1177/ 0018720811417254

    doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 2011

  6. [6]

    D. Shin, The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable ai, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 146 (2021) 102551. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581920301531. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    S. Ali, T. Abuhmed, S. El-Sappagh, K. Muhammad, J. M. Alonso-Moral, R. Confalonieri, R. Guidotti, J. Del Ser, N. Díaz-Rodríguez, F. Herrera, Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): What we know and what is left to attain trustworthy artificial intelligence, Information Fusion 99 (2023) 101805. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156...

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Akash, W.-L

    K. Akash, W.-L. Hu, N. Jain, T. Reid, A classification model for sensing human trust in machines using eeg and gsr, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 8 (2018) Article 27. URL: https://doi.org/10. 1145/3132743. doi:10.1145/3132743

    doi:10.1145/3132743 2018

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    S. Choo, C. Nam, Detecting human trust calibration in automation: A convolutional neural network approach, 2022. URL: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id= adc76bfc-bd10-3828-ad61-8d1d02d56aab. doi: 10.1109/THMS.2021.3137015

    2022

  2. [10]

    Ahmad, B

    A. Ahmad, B. Nakisa, M. N. Rastgoo, Robust emotion recognition via bi-level self-supervised continual learning, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10575

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    C. Hu, S. Huang, Y. Zhou, S. Ge, B. Yi, X. Zhang, X. Wu, Dynamic and quantitative trust modeling and real-time estimation in human-machine co-driving process, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 106 (2024) 306–327. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.co...

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Hulle, S

    N. Hulle, S. Aroca-Ouellette, A. J. Ries, J. Brawer, A. Roncone, Eyes on the game: Deciphering implicit human signals to infer human proficiency, trust, and intent, arXiv.org (2024). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03298

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    U. Soni, S. Sreedharan, S. Kambhampati, Not all users are the same: Providing personalized explanations for sequential decision making problems, in: 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), ????, pp. 6240–6247. URL: https://doi.org/10.11...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Milivojevic, M

    S. Milivojevic, M. Sobhani, N. Webb, Z. Madin, J. Ward, S. Yusuf, C. Baber, E. R. Hunt, Swift trust in mobile ad hoc human-robot teams, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3686038.3686057. doi:10.1145/3686038.3686057

    2024

  7. [15]

    Paleja, M

    R. Paleja, M. Ghuy, N. R. Arachchige, R. Jensen, M. Gombolay, The utility of explainable ai in ad hoc human-machine teaming, 2021. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3540261.3540308, https://github.com/CORE-Robotics-Lab/Utility-of-Explainable-AI-NeurIPS2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    M. R. Endsley, Supporting human-ai teams:transparency, explainability, and situation awareness, Computers in Human Behavior 140 (2023) 107574. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0747563222003946. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107574

    2023

  9. [17]

    Shaffer, J

    F. Shaffer, J. P. Ginsberg, An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms, Front Pub- lic Health 5 (2017) 258. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258, 2296-2565 Shaffer, Fred Ginsberg, J P Journal Article Review Switzerland 2017/10/17 Front Public Health. 2017 Sep 28;5:258. d...

    2017

  10. [18]

    H. N. Green, T. Iqbal, Using physiological measures, gaze, and facial expressions to model human trust in a robot partner, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05291

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Aygun, H

    A. Aygun, H. Ghasemzadeh, R. Jafari, Robust interbeat interval and heart rate variability estimation method from various morphological features using wearable sensors, IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 24 (2020) 2238–2250. doi:10.1109/jbhi.2019.2962627, 2168-2208 Aygun, Ayca Ghasemz...

    2020

  12. [20]

    M. N. Rastgoo, N. Bahareh, R. Andry, M. Frederic, , V. Chandran, Driver stress levels detection system using hyperparameter optimization, Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 28 (2024) 443–458. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2022.2140046. doi: 10.1080/15472450....

    2024

  13. [21]

    Nakisa, M

    B. Nakisa, M. N. Rastgoo, D. Tjondronegoro, V. Chandran, Evolutionary computation algorithms for feature selection of eeg-based emotion recognition using mobile sensors, Expert Systems with Applications 93 (2018) 143–155. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    H. M. Khalid, L. W. Shiung, P. Nooralishahi, Z. Rasool, M. G. Helander, L. C. Kiong, C. Ai-vyrn, Exploring psycho-physiological correlates to trust:implications for human-robot-human inter- action, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 60 (2016...

    2016 doi

  15. [24]

    Sadrfaridpour, H

    B. Sadrfaridpour, H. Saeidi, Y. Wang, J. Burke, Modeling and control of trust in human and robot collaborative manufacturing, AAAI Spring Symposium - Technical Report (2014) 64–70. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7668-0_7

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    K. A. Hoff, M. Bashir, Trust in automation:integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust, Human Factors 57 (2015) 407–434. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/ 0018720814547570. doi:10.1177/0018720814547570

    2015 doi

  17. [26]

    J.-H. Cho, K. Chan, S. Adali, A survey on trust modeling, ACM Comput. Surv. 48 (2015) Article 28. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2815595. doi:10.1145/2815595

    2015 doi

  18. [27]

    Seong, A

    Y. Seong, A. M. Bisantz, The impact of cognitive feedback on judgment performance and trust with decision aids, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2008) 608–625. URL: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814108000279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1...

    2008 doi

  19. [28]

    Sreedharan, T

    S. Sreedharan, T. Chakraborti, S. Kambhampati, Handling model uncertainty and multiplicity in explanations via model reconciliation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling 28 (2018) 518–526. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICAPS/ar...

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    M. W. Floyd, D. W. Aha, Incorporating transparency during trust-guided behavior adaptation, in: A. Goel, M. B. Díaz-Agudo, T. Roth-Berghofer (Eds.), Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development, Springer International Publishing, ????, pp. 124–138

  21. [30]

    Bobko, L

    P. Bobko, L. Hirshfield, L. Eloy, C. Spencer, E. Doherty, J. Driscoll, H. Obolsky, Human-agent teaming and trust calibration: a theoretical framework, configurable testbed, empirical illustration, and implications for the development of adaptive systems, Theoretical Issues in ...

    2023

  22. [31]

    S. C. Kohn, E. J. de Visser, E. Wiese, Y. C. Lee, T. H. Shaw, Measurement of trust in automation: A narrative review and reference guide, Front Psychol 12 (2021) 604977. URL: https://libkey. io/libraries/136/articles/502135231/content-location?utm_source=nomad. doi:10.3389/fps...

    2021

  23. [32]

    L. Mou, Y. Zhao, C. Zhou, B. Nakisa, M. N. Rastgoo, L. Ma, T. Huang, B. Yin, R. Jain, W. Gao, Driver emotion recognition with a hybrid attentional multimodal fusion framework, IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 14 (2023) 2970–2981. doi:10.1109/TAFFC.2023.3250460

    2023

  24. [33]

    Fernando;, B

    N. Fernando;, B. Nakisa;, M. N. Rastgoo;, A. Ahmad, Adaptive explainability in human-machine teams: Enhancing swift trust and collaboration in dynamic environments, CHI - Affective interac- tion and affective computing - past, present and future (2025). URL: https://sites.goog...

    2025

  25. [34]

    Zerilli, U

    J. Zerilli, U. Bhatt, A. Weller, How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence, Patterns 3 (2022). URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455. doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455, doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455

    2022

  26. [35]

    Setzu, R

    M. Setzu, R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, F. Turini, D. Pedreschi, F. Giannotti, Glocalx - from local to global explanations of black box ai models, Artificial Intelligence 294 (2021) 103457. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370221000084. doi:https://doi.o...

    2021

  27. [36]

    Chamola, V

    V. Chamola, V. Hassija, A. R. Sulthana, D. Ghosh, D. Dhingra, B. Sikdar, A review of trustworthy and explainable artificial intelligence (xai), IEEE Access 11 (2023) 78994–79015. URL: https://doi-org. ezproxy-f.deakin.edu.au/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3294569. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3294569

    2023

  28. [37]

    J. D. Lee, K. A. See, Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance, Human Factors 46 (2004) 50–80. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392. doi:10. 1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

    2004 doi

  29. [38]

    Adadi, M

    A. Adadi, M. Berrada, Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai), IEEE Access 6 (2018) 52138–52160. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/6287639/8274985/08466590.pdf?tp=&arnumber=8466590&isn...

    2018

  30. [39]

    J. S. Park, C. Q. Zou, A. Shaw, B. M. Hill, C. Cai, M. R. Morris, R. Willer, P. Liang, M. S. Bernstein, Generative agent simulations of 1,000 people, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10109

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.