pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06611 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 💻 cs.HC

Meaningful Human Command: Towards a New Model for Military Human-Robot Interaction

Adam Hepworth , Zena Assaad , Austin Wyatt , Hussein Abbass This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords meaningful human commandmilitary human-robot interactionAI-enabled autonomous systemscommand and controlresponsible AIhuman oversightautonomous systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Meaningful human command provides a more operationally effective framework than meaningful human control for military AI systems.

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

The paper argues that meaningful human control, while widely used for responsible AI, does not fit military human-robot interaction and may block the operational benefits that AI autonomy can deliver. It therefore introduces meaningful human command as a tailored alternative that supports symbiotic human-machine relationships within military command structures. A vignette of an AI-enabled system in operations is used to make the concept concrete and to surface design challenges. A sympathetic reader would care because the shift aims to let defense forces gain efficiency and effectiveness from AI without losing accountable oversight.

Core claim

This paper presents meaningful human command (MHC1) as a more operationally effective concept for advanced military command and control systems that embed AI-enabled autonomous systems. The authors introduce, explore, and unpack meaningful human command in the context of military human-robot interaction, presenting a vignette that offers a technologically feasible concept of an AI-enabled system within military operations to guide, contextualise, and add realism while highlighting associated MHRI challenges.

What carries the argument

Meaningful human command (MHC1), the reframing of human oversight that enables greater integration of AI autonomy into military command-and-control while preserving responsibility.

If this is right

  • AI-enabled autonomous systems integrate into military operations with higher effectiveness.
  • Human skills combine with machine capabilities to produce measurable operational gains.
  • Design of human-AI dynamics in command systems aligns more closely with real military requirements.
  • Responsible AI adoption advances without sacrificing the advantages of autonomy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Military doctrine on levels of autonomy may need revision to accommodate command-style oversight.
  • The model could extend to civilian domains such as disaster response with autonomous platforms.
  • Wargame or live exercises comparing the two oversight styles would provide direct performance data.

Load-bearing premise

Meaningful human control falls short in military contexts and hinders the military advantages that responsible AI could otherwise deliver.

What would settle it

An operational test or simulation in which meaningful human control achieves equal or superior military effectiveness and advantage compared with meaningful human command would undermine the need for the new model.

read the original abstract

Military human robot interaction (MHRI) presents a novel opportunity to blend the capabilities of autonomous and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled systems with the skills and expertise of humans. The concept promises military advantages and greater operational effectiveness and efficiencies. However, the associated human-AI dynamics create challenges when attempting to design, implement, and operationalise the increasingly symbiotic relationship between humans and machines. Meaningful human control (MHC) is a popularised conceptualisation of what is deemed a responsible interaction among human and artificial agents; however, this notion falls short in military contexts and hinders the realisation of military advantages that could be achieved by advancing the adoption of responsible AI. This paper presents meaningful human command (MHC1) as a more operationally effective concept for advanced military command and control systems that embed AI-enabled autonomous systems. We introduce, explore, and unpack meaningful human command in the context of military human-robot interaction, presenting a vignette that offers a technologically feasible concept of an AI-enabled system within military operations. The vignette is used to guide, contextualise, and add realism to the narrative describing the concept and highlights associated MHRI challenges.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that meaningful human control (MHC) is inadequate for military human-robot interaction (MHRI) with AI-enabled autonomous systems because it hinders operational advantages, and introduces 'meaningful human command' (MHC1) as a superior alternative for advanced command-and-control (C2) systems. The argument is developed conceptually by unpacking MHC1 and illustrating it with a vignette of a technologically feasible AI-enabled military system that highlights associated MHRI challenges.

Significance. If MHC1 can be operationalized with clear distinctions in authority, accountability, and decision thresholds, the proposal could inform responsible-AI design in defense contexts by allowing greater system autonomy while preserving human oversight in a command rather than control framework. The vignette supplies a concrete narrative anchor that grounds the discussion, which is a positive feature for a conceptual paper; however, the absence of any comparative metrics, formal criteria, or empirical grounding limits immediate applicability to engineering or policy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and opening sections: the central claim that MHC 'falls short in military contexts and hinders the realisation of military advantages' is presented without mapping specific MHC shortcomings (latency, authority delegation, or decision bottlenecks) to concrete MHC1 remedies; the assertion therefore remains definitional rather than demonstrated.
  2. [Vignette] Vignette section: the narrative illustrates technological feasibility but supplies no operational definition of MHC1 command authority, accountability chains, or decision thresholds, nor any side-by-side comparison (textual or tabular) with MHC protocols; without these elements the effectiveness claim cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Meaningful Human Command] MHC1 unpacking section: the paper introduces MHC1 as 'more operationally effective' yet provides no criteria, metrics, or falsifiable conditions for what constitutes 'meaningful' command, leaving the concept open to the same interpretive difficulties it attributes to MHC.
minor comments (3)
  1. Notation: MHC and MHC1 are not consistently distinguished typographically or in a comparison table; a side-by-side summary of the two concepts would improve clarity.
  2. [Vignette] The vignette could include more technical detail on the AI system's sensing, planning, and execution loops to strengthen its role as an illustrative device.
  3. References to existing MHC literature and military C2 doctrines are present but could be expanded to show precisely where MHC1 diverges from prior proposals.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback, which highlights opportunities to strengthen the clarity and evaluability of our conceptual proposal. We respond to each major comment below and note the revisions we will incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and opening sections: the central claim that MHC 'falls short in military contexts and hinders the realisation of military advantages' is presented without mapping specific MHC shortcomings (latency, authority delegation, or decision bottlenecks) to concrete MHC1 remedies; the assertion therefore remains definitional rather than demonstrated.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit mapping of MHC limitations to MHC1 features would make the central claim more demonstrative. In the revised manuscript we will add a short subsection immediately following the introduction of MHC1 that identifies three concrete shortcomings of MHC (decision latency in time-critical operations, constraints on authority delegation to autonomous agents, and human decision bottlenecks) and maps each to a corresponding MHC1 mechanism, such as command-level parameter setting that permits delegated autonomy within bounded parameters while preserving overall accountability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Vignette] Vignette section: the narrative illustrates technological feasibility but supplies no operational definition of MHC1 command authority, accountability chains, or decision thresholds, nor any side-by-side comparison (textual or tabular) with MHC protocols; without these elements the effectiveness claim cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The vignette is designed to illustrate technological feasibility and surface MHRI challenges rather than to serve as a complete operational specification. To address the concern we will insert, immediately after the vignette, a new subsection that supplies operational definitions for MHC1 command authority (the scope of objectives a human commander may set and adjust), accountability chains (traceability from strategic commander through operators to system actions), and decision thresholds (conditions under which human review is required). We will also add a concise comparative table contrasting these elements under MHC versus MHC1, using concrete examples drawn from the vignette. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Meaningful Human Command] MHC1 unpacking section: the paper introduces MHC1 as 'more operationally effective' yet provides no criteria, metrics, or falsifiable conditions for what constitutes 'meaningful' command, leaving the concept open to the same interpretive difficulties it attributes to MHC.

    Authors: We recognise that any notion of 'meaningful' oversight carries interpretive challenges, including those already present in the MHC literature. In revision we will expand the MHC1 unpacking section to articulate explicit criteria for meaningful command, centred on the commander’s retained capacity to define and modify high-level mission objectives in real time together with clear accountability for resulting outcomes. We will further propose falsifiable conditions, such as the requirement that MHC1 permit faster adaptation to changing operational contexts than strict MHC implementations, while acknowledging that quantitative empirical testing of these conditions lies outside the scope of the present conceptual paper. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: conceptual proposal without self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper advances a definitional critique of meaningful human control (MHC) and introduces meaningful human command (MHC1) as an alternative for military human-robot interaction. It supports the claim via a narrative vignette illustrating a feasible AI-enabled system, without equations, fitted parameters, derivations, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce any result to its own inputs by construction. The central argument remains illustrative and conceptual rather than a closed loop equating outputs to inputs. This is the expected non-circular outcome for a non-mathematical position paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that MHC is inadequate for military use and on the invented entity of MHC1 itself, with no free parameters or external evidence.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Meaningful human control falls short in military contexts and hinders realisation of military advantages
    Directly stated in the abstract as the motivation for the new concept.
invented entities (1)
  • Meaningful human command (MHC1) no independent evidence
    purpose: To serve as a more operationally effective model for military human-robot interaction with AI
    Newly proposed framework without independent falsifiable evidence outside the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1207 out tokens · 60770 ms · 2026-05-10T18:24:02.052219+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    is the result of shared confidence across an organisation,

    hese systems, the nature of their roles within C2 structures are shifting from tools to teammates (Neads et al., 2021). The applicability of the underlying C2 principles for machines are shaped by this dynamic. Table 1 outlines principles of military mission command amongst Western militaries. The last column of Table 1 outlines the machine’s ability to m...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Early work on HRI centred on aspects of robotic supervisory control, with the now-defunct master-slave paradigm dominant across the literature in the field

    Mutual Trust X X X X X No (Shared)(Mutual) Understanding X X X X X Yes and No Commander’s Intent X X X X X Yes and No (Mission) Orders X X X Yes and No (Disciplined) Initiative X X X Yes and No Risk Acceptance X X X Yes Verification X Competence X X Yes Unity of Command X Freedom of Action X Unity of Effort X Timely and Effective Decision Making X X Decen...

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Meta-analyses indicate that robot performance and attributes dominate trust formation, with human and environmental factors secondary in impact (Hancock et al., 2011)

    define trust as ‘confidence in the reliability of [a system] when used in the intended operation of use.’ Trust is a dynamic attribute that calibrates over time, subject to system performance, reliability and predictability. Meta-analyses indicate that robot performance and attributes dominate trust formation, with human and environmental factors secondar...

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    One example includes the Situation Awareness-based Agent Transparency (SAT) model (Chen et al., 2014), based on the theory of Situation Awareness (SA) (Endsley, 1995)

    and (Zhang et al., 2021)). One example includes the Situation Awareness-based Agent Transparency (SAT) model (Chen et al., 2014), based on the theory of Situation Awareness (SA) (Endsley, 1995). This model supports operator SA in settings with human and non-human intelligent agents. Transparency and accountability frameworks building on the fundamental pr...

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    centaur” paradigm (where humans directed robotic teammates) than under a “minotaur

    and the operational context of deployment (Galliott and Wyatt, 2022). The concept of adapting existing human-centric lexicons for HRI purposes is not new. Adjacent to transparency research are emerging lexicons and formal languages for 9 HMT is often synonymous with the concept of Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T). teaming with robotic and AI-enabled system...

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    aligns with mission-command’s requirement for shared understanding and disciplined initiative, providing a theoretical bridge for these concepts within military HRI. Notwithstanding, ethical, safety and social considerations inform guardrails for autonomy, assurance and governance mechanisms that MHC1 must embed across the lifecycle (design, testing, depl...

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    responsibility gap

    or “responsibility gap” (Galliott, 2016). In reality, there exists a hierarchy of control and a chain of decision-making that leads to the point of deployment of such systems (Assaad and Williams, 2025). Therefore, a chain of responsibility is always present and cannot be obfuscated under the false pretence of an absence of human decision-making. The conc...

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Disciplined Initiative

    propose four common characteristics in extant definitions of meaningful human control. The first common element is the requirement that human operators be given sufficient training and experience with the weapon system such that they can make informed and accurate decisions about its use and the operational context, and the system is required to be design...

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    In adversarial, time-compressed and communications-degraded situations, strict interpretation of MHC assumptions conflicts with the conduct of C2 through mission command

    fundamental tension among the purpose of an autonomous system, the agency afforded to it, and the need for instantaneous oversight. In adversarial, time-compressed and communications-degraded situations, strict interpretation of MHC assumptions conflicts with the conduct of C2 through mission command. Continual operator observability and the need for imme...

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    However, functional confidence in the system can be developed by the Commander to enable delegation within defined bounds, serving a specific purpose within mission command

    Revised assessment of machine applicability (from this work) Mutual Trust No No (Shared)(Mutual) Understanding Yes and No Yes (functional confidence) Commander’s Intent Yes and No Yes (Mission) Orders Yes and No Yes (Disciplined) Initiative Yes and No Yes (functionally bounded) Risk Acceptance Yes Yes For mutual trust, the relationship remains asymmetric ...

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoW) visual information does not imply or constitute DoW endorsement

    and (Riley et al., 2016)). So far, the focus has been on measuring humans’ understanding of the machine using questionnaires and scales and identifying which information to display to foster this shared understanding. Unfortunately, these approaches come with significant limitations, including the fact that shared understanding occurs in dynamic situation...

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Editorial: What is Artificial Intelligence? IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell. 2, 94–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2021.3096243 Abbass, H., Crockett, K., Garibaldi, J., Gegov, A., Kaymak, U., Sousa, J.M.C.,

    work page doi:10.1109/tai.2021.3096243 2021

  13. [13]

    IEEE Trans

    Editorial: From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (xAI) to Understandable Artificial Intelligence (uAI). IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell. 5, 4310–4314. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2024.3439048 Abbass, H.A., Petraki, E., Hunjet, R.,

    work page doi:10.1109/tai.2024.3439048 2024

  14. [14]

    JSwarm: A Jingulu-Inspired Human-AI-Teaming Language for Context-Aware Swarm Guidance. Front. Phys. 10, 944064. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.944064 Alberts, D.S., Hayes, R.E.,

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.944064 2022

  15. [15]

    Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems , articleno =

    A risk-based trust framework for assuring the humans in human-machine teaming, in: TAS ’24: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems, TAS ’24. Association for Computing Machinery, Austin, TX, USA, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3686038.3686045 Assaad, Z., Boshuijzen-van Burken, C.,

    work page doi:10.1145/3686038.3686045

  16. [16]

    Association for Computing Machinery, Edinburgh, UK

    Ethics and Safety of Human-Machine Teaming, in: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems, TAS ’23. Association for Computing Machinery, Edinburgh, UK. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597512.3600205 Assaad, Z., Hepworth, A.,

    work page doi:10.1145/3597512.3600205

  17. [17]

    Presented at the 2025 IEEE 50th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), IEEE, Sydney, Australia, pp

    Meaningful Human Control over Swarms in ISTAR, in: 2025 IEEE 50th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN). Presented at the 2025 IEEE 50th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), IEEE, Sydney, Australia, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/LCN65610.2025.11146297 Beavis, J.,

    work page doi:10.1109/lcn65610.2025.11146297 2025

  18. [18]

    Artificial Intelligence Is Stupid and Causal Reasoning Will Not Fix It. Front. Psychol. 11, 513474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474 Blanchard, A., Thomas, C., Taddeo, M.,

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474 2020

  19. [19]

    AI & Soc 40, 185–198

    Ethical governance of artificial intelligence for defence: normative tradeoffs for principle to practice guidance. AI & Soc 40, 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01866-7 Boyd, J.R.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-024-01866-7

  20. [20]

    IEEE Trans

    Shared Understanding for Collaborative Control. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A 35, 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2005.850599 Builder, C.H., Bankes, S.C., Nordin, R.,

    work page doi:10.1109/tsmca.2005.850599 2005

  21. [21]

    Monoscopic vs. stereoscopic views and display types in the teleoperation of unmanned ground vehicles for object avoidance,

    Trust, Shared Understanding and Locus of Control in Mixed-Initiative Robotic Systems, in: 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). Presented at the 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 684–691. https://doi.org/10.110...

    work page doi:10.1109/ro-man50785.2021.9515476 2021

  22. [22]

    Improving Compliance with International Humanitarian Law in an Era of Maneuver War and Mission Command. SMU L. Rev. 78, 3–39. https://doi.org/10.25172/smulr.78.1.2 Crump, D.,

    work page doi:10.25172/smulr.78.1.2

  23. [23]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06813 Ekelhof, M.,

    Meaningful human command: Advance control directives as a method to enable moral and legal responsibility for autonomous weapons systems. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06813 Ekelhof, M.,

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.06813

  24. [24]

    Global Policy 10, 343–348

    Moving Beyond Semantics on Autonomous Weapons: Meaningful Human Control in Operation. Global Policy 10, 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12665 Eklund, A.M.,

    work page doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12665

  25. [25]

    Human Factors 37, 32–64

    Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors 37, 32–64. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543 European Commission,

    work page doi:10.1518/001872095779049543

  26. [26]

    Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon

    Military robots: mapping the moral landscape, Military and defence ethics. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315595443 Galliott, J., Wyatt, A.,

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315595443

  27. [27]

    Defence Studies 22, 253–276

    A consideration of how emerging military leaders perceive themes in the autonomous weapon system discourse. Defence Studies 22, 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2021.2012653 Goodrich, M.A., Schultz, A.C.,

    work page doi:10.1080/14702436.2021.2012653 2021

  28. [28]

    FNT in Human-Computer Interaction 1, 203–275

    Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey. FNT in Human-Computer Interaction 1, 203–275. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000005 Hancock, P.A., Billings, D.R., Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J.Y.C., de Visser, E.J., Parasuraman, R.,

    work page doi:10.1561/1100000005

  29. [29]

    A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum. Factors 53, 517–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254 Helmer, D., Boardman, M., Conroy, S.K., Hepworth, A.J., Harjani, M.,

    work page doi:10.1177/0018720811417254

  30. [30]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.01978 Hepworth, A.J., Baxter, D.P., Abbass, H.A.,

    Human-centred test and evaluation of military AI. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.01978 Hepworth, A.J., Baxter, D.P., Abbass, H.A.,

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.01978

  31. [31]

    IEEE Access 10, 59843–59861

    Onto4MAT: A Swarm Shepherding Ontology for Generalized Multiagent Teaming. IEEE Access 10, 59843–59861. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3180032 Hepworth, A.J., Baxter, D.P., Hussein, A., Yaxley, K.J., Debie, E., Abbass, H.A.,

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2022.3180032 2022

  32. [32]

    IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 8, 1281–1295

    Human-Swarm-Teaming Transparency and Trust Architecture. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 8, 1281–1295. https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2020.1003545 Hepworth, A.J., Hussein, A.S.M., Reid, D.J., Abbass, H.A.,

    work page doi:10.1109/jas.2020.1003545 2020

  33. [33]

    Swarm Intell 18, 275–310

    Contextually aware intelligent control agents for heterogeneous swarms. Swarm Intell 18, 275–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-024-00235-w Horowitz, M.C., Scharre, P.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s11721-024-00235-w

  34. [34]

    AIES 8, 1324–1334

    An Adaptive Responsible AI Governance Framework for Decentralized Organizations. AIES 8, 1324–1334. https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i2.36633 Jebari, J., Greenberg, A.M.,

    work page doi:10.1609/aies.v8i2.36633

  35. [35]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/knowledge6010003 Jentsch, F.,

    work page doi:10.3390/knowledge6010003

  36. [37]

    Contemporary Security Policy 30, 172–193

    Automating War: The Need for Regulation. Contemporary Security Policy 30, 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260902760397 Lushenko, P., Sparrow, R.,

    work page doi:10.1080/13523260902760397

  37. [38]

    SSRN Journal

    Artificial Intelligence and US Military Cadets’ Attitudes about Future War. SSRN Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4812762 M, K., Sm, F.R., Prathi, S., Elavarasi, M.,

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4812762

  38. [39]

    Presented at the 2025 7th International Conference on Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application (ICIDCA), IEEE, Coimbatore, India, pp

    Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence: Bridging Semantic Gaps in Machine Understanding, in: 2025 7th International Conference on Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application (ICIDCA). Presented at the 2025 7th International Conference on Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application (ICIDCA), IEEE, Coimbatore, India, pp. 139–14...

    work page doi:10.1109/icidca66325.2025.11280578 2025

  39. [40]

    IEEE Trans

    C3: The Challenge of Change. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. AES-20, 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.1984.4502061 Möller, R., Furnari, A., Battiato, S., Härmä, A., Farinella, G.M.,

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.1984.4502061 1984

  40. [41]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 145, 103837

    A survey on human-aware robot navigation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 145, 103837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2021.103837 NATO,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.robot.2021.103837 2021

  41. [42]

    NATO Science & Technology Trends: 2023-2043. NATO,

    work page 2023

  42. [43]

    (Eds.), Computer Networks, Big Data and IoT, Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies

    A Review Towards Research in Multi-robot Coordination System, in: Pandian, A.P., Fernando, X., Haoxiang, W. (Eds.), Computer Networks, Big Data and IoT, Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp. 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0898-9_43 Riley, J.M., Strater, L.D., Chappell, S.L...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-0898-9_43

  43. [44]

    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315587622 Risso, L.,

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315587622

  44. [45]

    Presence: Teleoper

    Human interaction with levels of automation and decision-aid fidelity in the supervisory control of multiple simulated unmanned air vehicles. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474602760204264 Santora, M., Jakes, L., Kramer, A.E., Hernandez, M., Sholudko, L.,

    work page doi:10.1162/105474602760204264

  45. [46]

    New York TImes

    A Thousand Snipers in the Sky: The New War in Ukraine. New York TImes. Sheridan, T.B., 2016a. Human–Robot Interaction: Status and Challenges. Hum Factors 58, 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816644364 Sheridan, T.B., 2016b. Human–Robot Interaction: Status and Challenges. Hum Factors 58, 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816644364 Sjøgren, S.,...

    work page doi:10.1177/0018720816644364

  46. [47]

    Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies 8, 89–103

    Multinational Mission Command: From Paper to Practice in NATO. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies 8, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.329 Steckman, L., Iyer, N., Kim, B., Lyons, J., Cappuccio, M., Gaffley, M.R., Phillips, E., Sousa, S., Van Kleek, M.,

    work page doi:10.31374/sjms.329

  47. [48]

    Presented at the CHI EA ’25: Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Yokohama Japan, pp

    Challenges and Opportunities in the Responsible Use of AI and Human-Computer Interaction, in: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Presented at the CHI EA ’25: Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Yokohama Japan, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3716304

  48. [49]

    Presented at the 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, Chicago, IL, USA, pp

    Communicating Robot Motion Intent with Augmented Reality. Presented at the 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 316–324. Zhang, B., Anderljung, M., Kahn, L., Dreksler, N., Horowitz, M.C., Dafoe, A.,

    work page 2018

  49. [50]

    https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12895 Zhang, Z., Singh, J., Gadiraju, U., Anand, A.,

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.1.12895

  50. [51]

    Dissonance Between Human and Machine Understanding. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359158

    work page doi:10.1145/3359158