Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 62 references

The Individual-Targeting Assumption: A Systematic Review of Proactive Robots in Human Group Settings

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Proactive robots treat people in groups as independent targets rather than social units, and how they should join a pre-formed group remains unaddressed across 63 studies.

desk verdict Solid systematic review that names and quantifies ITA and isolates a real group-entry gap; the 60.3% and "unaddressed" claims are a bit soft on dual-coding and theme reliability, but the diagnosis is useful and worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09734 v1 pith:CD6UIWNI submitted 2026-07-02 cs.HC cs.RO

Tauhid Tanjim , Tasmia Mayen , Malte F. Jung , Susan R. Fussell This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.RO
keywords proactiveHRIhumangroupsIndividual-TargetingAssumptiongroupentrymultipartyinteractionsocialrobotsengagementbystanderneglect
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

Proactive robots in public places almost always meet people who already form groups, yet most designs still treat each person as a separate engagement target. A systematic review of 63 studies from 2000 to 2025 finds this Individual-Targeting Assumption in 60.3 percent of the corpus. Group-aware methods appear almost only after the robot is already inside an ongoing interaction; how a robot should detect, approach, and negotiate entry into a pre-formed group before first contact is left open. When individual targeting is used, three recurring failures appear: misreading inter-member signals as disengagement, skipping the group's internal agreement to engage, and neglecting bystanders. The paper therefore reframes proactive group HRI not as scaled-up one-to-one interaction but as a distinct design problem whose critical gap is the entry phase.

What carries the argument

The Individual-Targeting Assumption (ITA): the design tendency to treat each person in a social group as an independent engagement target based only on individual signals (gaze, proximity, orientation, speech) while remaining blind to the group's relational structure. It is contrasted with the Group-Aware Approach (GAA), which models at least one relational property of the group, and is mapped across interaction contexts (group entry, facilitation, spatial conduct) and three inductively coded failure modes.

What would settle it

Independent re-coding of the same 63 papers with the published codebook, or an expanded search that finds multiple proactive systems that explicitly model group openness and negotiate entry before first contact; a large share of group-aware entry designs would overturn the claim that entry is unaddressed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 63 proactive HRI studies in group settings, the Individual-Targeting Assumption—modeling each co-present person as an independent engagement target from individual signals alone—is present in 60.3 percent of the corpus. Group-aware approaches that model relational group properties arise almost entirely in the facilitation context after the robot is already embedded. How a robot should detect and negotiate entry into a pre-formed group before initiating contact remains unaddressed. Three failure modes—engagement misdetection, social ratification blindness, and bystander neglect—recur under individual targeting. Proactive HRI with groups is therefore not an extension of dyadic interacti

Load-bearing premise

The 60.3 percent prevalence figure and the three failure counts rest on two authors' consensus inductive coding of themes without a formal reliability statistic on those theme codes, so different boundary choices could change the numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Group-entry perception and negotiation become the priority target for proactive public robots.
  • Engagement, ratification, and bystander effects must be evaluated at the group level, not only per person.
  • Facilitation techniques such as turn-taking and participation balance do not transfer to entry, where the robot has only a brief observation window.
  • Designs that treat multiparty interaction as scaled dyadic interaction will keep producing the three documented failure modes.
  • Future systems need robot-centric detection of F-formations, inter-member gaze, and group openness cues during approach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Public robots in malls, hospitals, and schools will keep failing social legitimacy until entry protocols treat groups as units that must ratify inclusion.
  • The same structural gap likely appears in non-robot multiparty agents that initiate contact with co-present people.
  • A direct test would compare robots that wait for collective orientation against robots that address the nearest individual, measuring ratification and bystander comfort.
  • Crowd-formation detectors already used for collision avoidance could be extended to social-openness classifiers without building perception from scratch.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This systematic review of 63 proactive HRI studies (2000–2025) argues that robots in multi-human settings often treat co-present people as independent engagement targets—the Individual-Targeting Assumption (ITA)—rather than as a relational social unit. The authors report ITA in 60.3% of the corpus (Unreflective, Critical, and Transitional forms), catalogue Group-Aware Approaches (GAA) that model relational properties, and map three interaction contexts (group entry, facilitation, spatial conduct). They document three recurring failure modes (engagement misdetection, social ratification blindness, bystander neglect) and conclude that group-aware techniques appear almost entirely after the robot is already embedded, leaving pre-contact detection and negotiation of entry into a pre-formed group unaddressed. Proactive group HRI is thereby reframed as a qualitatively distinct design problem whose critical open challenge is the entry phase.

Significance. If the prevalence and entry-gap claims hold, the paper supplies a useful conceptual vocabulary (ITA vs GAA) and a concrete research agenda for a setting that is common in public deployments but still under-theorized relative to dyadic proactive HRI. Strengths include a transparent multi-database search, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, high inter-rater agreement on study inclusion (κ=0.812), and clear summary tables that make the coding scheme inspectable. The synthesis of failure modes and the catalogue of group-aware techniques (participation management, structure sensing, social-affective regulation, trust modelling) will be of practical value to designers. The contribution is primarily diagnostic and agenda-setting rather than a new algorithm or theory; its impact depends on the stability of the coding-derived percentages and on whether the absolute “unaddressed across the corpus” claim for pre-entry group negotiation survives closer scrutiny of dual-coded and multi-context papers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table I; Table II; §V.B] Table I note and Table II (Group Entry row and note): Four papers are dual-coded as both ITA and GAA, and 14 papers span multiple interaction contexts so row totals exceed N=63. The headline ITA rate (60.3%) aggregates Unreflective+Critical+Transitional and includes dual-coded items; the absolute claim that pre-contact entry negotiation is “unaddressed across the corpus” (Abstract; §V.B) rests on reinterpreting the four GAA-in-entry cases as applying group-aware methods only post-initiation or only to spatial conduct (Joosse et al.). Because dual-coding and multi-context assignment are consensus-based without a reported theme-level reliability statistic, modest reclassification of a few papers could shrink the apparent gap or make the “unaddressed” claim non-absolute. Please (i) report a pure partition (e.g., exclusive ITA / exclusive GAA / dual) and sensitivity of the 60.3% and entry co
  2. [§III.D; Limitations] §III.D and Limitations: Inclusion screening reports Cohen’s κ=0.812, but theme codes (ITA spectrum, GAA, three contexts, three failure modes, techniques) were finalized by iterative consensus with no formal inter-rater reliability on the theme-level codes. For a systematic review whose central quantitative claims are prevalence and failure counts, this is a load-bearing methodological gap. At minimum, report double-coding of a substantial subsample of the final 63 papers with κ (or equivalent) for the main theme codes, or provide a transparent audit trail (codebook excerpts and decision rules for dual-coding and multi-context assignment) so readers can assess stability of the 60.3%, 22/24 entry-ITA, and failure-mode n’s.
  3. [Table III; §IV; §V.C] Table III and §IV (Failure Mode theme): Failure modes are coded when breakdowns “could be interpreted as related to individual targeting,” and the authors note that this required interpretive judgment; several GAA papers are dual-coded because they document failures as baselines. The causal-chain narrative in §V.C (misdetection → ratification blindness → bystander neglect) is plausible but not independently measured in the corpus. Please separate (a) failures reported in ITA-only papers from (b) failures used as motivating baselines in GAA papers, and avoid implying a measured causal sequence unless the source papers support it. Clarify whether n=6/9/18 are unique papers or applications, and whether papers can contribute to multiple modes without double-counting in the “most common” claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; §I] Abstract and Introduction state the review covers 2000–2025, while §I also says papers were reviewed from 2009–2025 because none met criteria before 2009. Align the date range wording so readers are not led to expect pre-2009 included studies.
  2. [§V.B; Table II] Table II Group Entry: text says “22 of 25 papers” in §V.B but Table II lists n=24 (38.1%) for Group Entry. Reconcile 24 vs 25.
  3. [Table IV; §V.D] Table IV note: “group turn-taking management (n = 19)” in the Discussion text vs n=18 in Table IV. Align counts.
  4. [§IV] Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 are described but would benefit from explicit callouts in the Findings when ITA/GAA and the three failure modes are first formalized, so the figures are not only introductory.
  5. [Abstract; References] Minor typography: “V ázquez” / “V´azquez” spacing; “andbystander” missing space in Abstract; “engagement misdetection,social ratification” missing spaces in Abstract. Clean for production.
  6. [§III.D] OSF link is given for corpus and codebook; ensure the deposit is anonymized for review if required by the venue, and state whether the full dual-coding matrix is included.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild inductive definitional circularity typical of conventional content analysis; no fitted prediction or load-bearing self-citation chain forces the central claims.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Table I; §IV Findings (ITA Classification theme 1)]
    "we identify a recurring tendency, the Individual-Targeting Assumption (ITA), in which robots treat co-present people as independent engagement targets. We find that ITA is present in 60.3% of the corpus... ITA Total 38 (60.3%) Unreflective + Critical + Transitional"

    ITA is defined inductively from the same corpus in which its prevalence is then counted (Unreflective/Critical/Transitional codes summed to 60.3%). The percentage is therefore the count of papers the authors coded as ITA under their own scheme, not an independent prediction or first-principles result. This is the mild definitional loop of conventional content analysis, not a fitted-parameter or self-citation reduction of a claimed derivation.

full rationale

This is a systematic review that uses conventional content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon) to inductively surface codes (ITA/GAA, three failure modes, three interaction contexts) and then reports prevalence and absences in the same 63-paper corpus. That procedure makes the headline percentage (ITA in 60.3%) true by construction of the coding scheme rather than an independent theoretical derivation, which is a mild self-definitional loop inherent to the method and disclosed in §III.D and Limitations. It is not the mathematical circularity the analyzer targets: there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. Author self-citations ([2],[3],[4],[39]) appear as corpus members or related work and do not underwrite the ITA construct or the entry-gap claim. The entry-gap claim is an absence claim checked against the coded interaction contexts (Table II note: GAA papers spanning group entry apply techniques only post-entry or to spatial conduct), not a tautology. Dual-coding and multi-context tallies affect robustness of the percentages but do not make the result reduce to its inputs by equation. Score 2 reflects one minor definitional loop; the qualitative diagnosis that group entry is understudied remains an empirical literature finding, not a forced derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

As a systematic review using conventional content analysis, the paper rests on domain assumptions about what counts as proactive multiparty HRI and on the stability of its inductively derived codes. No free parameters are fitted; the invented entities are analytic constructs whose only evidence is the coded corpus itself.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper A paper exhibits the Individual-Targeting Assumption when the robot models each co-present person as an independent engagement target based solely on individual signals (gaze, proximity, orientation, speech) while remaining blind to relational group structure.
    Definition introduced in the Introduction and operationalized in Theme 1; prevalence (60.3%) is measured against this definition.
  • ad hoc to paper Group-aware behaviour requires explicit modelling of at least one relational group property (F-formation, speaking time, inter-human gaze, etc.) to inform proactive action.
    Theme 2 threshold; intentionally inclusive per Limitations, which affects the 46% GAA count.
  • ad hoc to paper Three interaction contexts (group entry, facilitation, spatial conduct) exhaustively partition the proactive behaviours of interest.
    Theme 3 emerged inductively; the entry-gap claim depends on this partition.
  • domain assumption Conventional content analysis with two-author consensus (without a formal reliability metric on theme codes) yields valid prevalence and failure-mode counts.
    Stated in Methodology §III.D and Limitations; inclusion kappa is reported but theme-level reliability is not.
  • domain assumption Inclusion of simulated robots and virtual agents is valid for characterizing the proactive multiparty literature.
    Explicitly justified in Inclusion criteria because physical multiparty proactive studies are scarce.
invented entities (3)
  • Individual-Targeting Assumption (ITA)
    purpose: Name and quantify the design tendency to treat group members as independent engagement targets.
    Core analytic construct; evidence is internal to the coded corpus.
  • Group-Aware Approach (GAA)
    purpose: Contrast class for papers that model relational group properties.
    Defined relative to ITA; no external validation instrument.
  • Three failure modes (engagement misdetection, social ratification blindness, bystander neglect)
    purpose: Catalogue recurring breakdowns attributed to individual targeting in groups.
    Inductively extracted and counted; interpretive coding acknowledged by authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Individual-Targeting Assumption: A Systematic Review of Proactive Robots in Human Group Settings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CD6UIWNI

@misc{pith2026260709734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Individual-Targeting Assumption: A Systematic Review of Proactive Robots in Human Group Settings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CD6UIWNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09734}
}
read the original abstract

Proactive robots are increasingly deployed in public environments where people are encountered not as isolated individuals but as members of cohesive social groups. Yet whether the prevailing design paradigm in proactive human-robot interaction (HRI) accounts for the relational structure that defines a group as a social unit remains largely unexamined. Through a systematic review of 63 proactive HRI studies in group settings from 2000 to 2025, we identify a recurring tendency, the Individual-Targeting Assumption (ITA), in which robots treat co-present people as independent engagement targets. We find that ITA is present in 60.3% of the corpus, with group-aware approaches emerging almost entirely after the robot is already embedded in an ongoing interaction. Critically, how a robot should detect and negotiate entry into a pre-formed group before initiating contact remains unaddressed across the corpus. Three failure modes, engagement misdetection, social ratification blindness, and bystander neglect, emerge as recurring patterns when proactive robots interact with human groups. These findings reframe proactive HRI in group settings not as an extension of dyadic interaction but as a qualitatively distinct design problem, and they identify the robot's approach to the group during the entry phase as a critical and understudied open challenge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two contrasting design paradigms in proactive HRI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Screening and selection process for the systematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three failure modes arising from the Individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references

  1. [1]

    A communication robot in a shopping mall,

    T. Kanda, M. Shiomi, Z. Miyashita, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita, “A communication robot in a shopping mall,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 897–913, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Human-robot teaming field deployments: A comparison between verbal and non-verbal communication,

    T. Tanjim, P. Ekpo, H. Cao, J. S. George, K. Ching, H. R. Lee, and A. Taylor, “Human-robot teaming field deployments: A comparison between verbal and non-verbal communication,” in2025 34th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communi- cation (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1699–1704

    2025

  3. [3]

    Help or hindrance: Understanding the impact of robot communication in action teams,

    T. Tanjim, J. S. George, K. Ching, and A. Taylor, “Help or hindrance: Understanding the impact of robot communication in action teams,” in2025 34th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1460–1465

    2025

  4. [4]

    Towards collaborative crash cart robots that support clinical teamwork,

    A. Taylor, T. Tanjim, H. Cao, and H. R. Lee, “Towards collaborative crash cart robots that support clinical teamwork,” inProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2024, pp. 715–724

    2024

  5. [5]

    Who will you imitate? studying reciprocal influence in children-robot groups during an imitation game,

    G. Pusceddu, F. Cocchella, M. Bogliolo, G. Belgiovine, L. Lastrico, F. Rea, M. Casadio, and A. Sciutti, “Who will you imitate? studying reciprocal influence in children-robot groups during an imitation game,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 12, p. 1563923, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Robots in groups and teams: a literature review,

    S. Sebo, B. Stoll, B. Scassellati, and M. F. Jung, “Robots in groups and teams: a literature review,”Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, vol. 4, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–36, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Developing robots for society,

    R. Gomez, “Developing robots for society,” in2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2025, pp. 2–2

    2025

  8. [8]

    Effects of proactivity and expressivity on collaboration with interactive robotic drawers,

    B. Mok, “Effects of proactivity and expressivity on collaboration with interactive robotic drawers,” in2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2016, pp. 633–634

    2016

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Learning controllers for reactive and proactive behaviors in human–robot col- laboration,

    L. Rozo, J. Silv ´erio, S. Calinon, and D. G. Caldwell, “Learning controllers for reactive and proactive behaviors in human–robot col- laboration,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 3, p. 30, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    What is proactive human- robot interaction?-a review of a progressive field and its definitions,

    M. K. van Den Broek and T. B. Moeslund, “What is proactive human- robot interaction?-a review of a progressive field and its definitions,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–30, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: A robotic trash can in the field

    K. Fischer, S. Yang, B. K. Mok, R. Maheshwari, D. Sirkin, and W. Ju, “Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: A robotic trash can in the field.” inAAAI spring symposia, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey,

    C. Mavrogiannis, F. Baldini, A. Wang, D. Zhao, P. Trautman, A. Stein- feld, and J. Oh, “Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1– 39, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Generating robot gaze on the basis of participation roles and dominance estimation in multiparty interaction,

    Y . I. Nakano, T. Yoshino, M. Yatsushiro, and Y . Takase, “Generating robot gaze on the basis of participation roles and dominance estimation in multiparty interaction,”ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1–23, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Automatically classifying user engagement for dynamic multi-party human–robot interaction,

    M. E. Foster, A. Gaschler, and M. Giuliani, “Automatically classifying user engagement for dynamic multi-party human–robot interaction,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 659–674, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues,

    B. Mutlu, T. Shiwa, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita, “Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues,” inProceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, 2009, pp. 61–68

    2009

  8. [16]

    Directions robot: in-the-wild experiences and lessons learned,

    D. Bohus, C. W. Saw, and E. Horvitz, “Directions robot: in-the-wild experiences and lessons learned,” inProceedings of the 2014 inter- national conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, 2014, pp. 637–644

    2014

  9. [17]

    Inferring user intent to interact with a public service robot using bimodal information analysis,

    K. Li, S. Sun, X. Zhao, J. Wu, and M. Tan, “Inferring user intent to interact with a public service robot using bimodal information analysis,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 33, no. 7-8, pp. 369–387, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    May i help you? design of human- like polite approaching behavior,

    Y . Kato, T. Kanda, and H. Ishiguro, “May i help you? design of human- like polite approaching behavior,” inProceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2015, pp. 35–42

    2015

  11. [19]

    User profiling based proactive interaction manager for adaptive human-robot interaction,

    H. Rajendran, H. R. T. Bandara, A. Jayasekara, and D. Chandima, “User profiling based proactive interaction manager for adaptive human-robot interaction,” in2023 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon). IEEE, 2023, pp. 632–637

    2023

  12. [20]

    Kendon,Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters

    A. Kendon,Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. CUP Archive, 1990, vol. 7

    1990

  13. [21]

    Social interaction discovery by statistical analysis of f-formations

    M. Cristani, L. Bazzani, G. Paggetti, A. Fossati, D. Tosato, A. Del Bue, G. Menegaz, and V . Murino, “Social interaction discovery by statistical analysis of f-formations.” inBMVC, vol. 2, no. 4, 2011, pp. 10–5244

    2011

  14. [22]

    Goffman,Behavior in public places

    E. Goffman,Behavior in public places. Simon and Schuster, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981

    ——,Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981

    1981

  16. [24]

    Towards robot autonomy in group conversations: Un- derstanding the effects of body orientation and gaze,

    M. V ´azquez, E. J. Carter, B. McDorman, J. Forlizzi, A. Steinfeld, and S. E. Hudson, “Towards robot autonomy in group conversations: Un- derstanding the effects of body orientation and gaze,” inProceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interacti...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Using user-generated youtube videos to understand unguided interactions with robots in public places,

    S. Nielsen, M. B. Skov, K. D. Hansen, and A. Kaszowska, “Using user-generated youtube videos to understand unguided interactions with robots in public places,”ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–40, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Engagement intention estimation in multiparty human-robot interaction,

    Z. Zhang, J. Zheng, and N. M. Thalmann, “Engagement intention estimation in multiparty human-robot interaction,” in2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot & human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2021, pp. 117–122

    2021

  19. [27]

    Strategies for con- trolling the conversation dynamics in multi-party human-robot inter- action,

    L. Grassi, C. T. Recchiuto, and A. Sgorbissa, “Strategies for con- trolling the conversation dynamics in multi-party human-robot inter- action,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1517–1539, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Group-based emotions in teams of humans and robots,

    F. Correia, S. Mascarenhas, R. Prada, F. S. Melo, and A. Paiva, “Group-based emotions in teams of humans and robots,” inProceed- ings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, 2018, pp. 261–269

    2018

  21. [29]

    Non-dyadic human-robot interaction: Concepts and interaction techniques,

    E. Schneiders, “Non-dyadic human-robot interaction: Concepts and interaction techniques,” in2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Con- ference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1176– 1178

    2022

  22. [30]

    A. M. Abrams and A. M. R.-v. der P ¨utten, “I–c–e framework: Concepts for group dynamics research in human-robot interaction: Revisiting theory from social psychology on ingroup identification (i), cohesion (c) and entitativity (e),”International Journal of Social Robotics, vo...

    2020

  23. [31]

    A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,

    J. Cohen, “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,”Educational and psychological measurement, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 1960

    1960

  24. [32]

    The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,

    J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,”biometrics, pp. 159–174, 1977

    1977

  25. [33]

    Three approaches to qualitative content analysis,

    H.-F. Hsieh and S. E. Shannon, “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis,”Qualitative health research, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1277– 1288, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    An empirical robotic framework for interacting with multiple humans,

    M. M. Hoque, Q. D. Hossian, D. Das, Y . Kobayashi, Y . Kuno, and K. Deb, “An empirical robotic framework for interacting with multiple humans,” in2013 International Conference on Electrical Information and Communication Technology (EICT). IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–5

    2014

  27. [35]

    Mobile care robot accepting requests through nonverbal interaction,

    M. Gyoda, T. Tabata, Y . Kobayashi, and Y . Kuno, “Mobile care robot accepting requests through nonverbal interaction,” in2011 17th Korea- Japan Joint Workshop on Frontiers of Computer Vision (FCV). IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–5

    2011

  28. [36]

    Outperformance of mall- receptionist android as inverse reinforcement learning is transitioned to reinforcement learning,

    Z. Chen, Y . Nakamura, and H. Ishiguro, “Outperformance of mall- receptionist android as inverse reinforcement learning is transitioned to reinforcement learning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3350–3357, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Assisted-care robot dealing with multiple requests in multi-party settings,

    Y . Kobayashi, M. Gyoda, T. Tabata, Y . Kuno, K. Yamazaki, M. Shibuya, and Y . Seki, “Assisted-care robot dealing with multiple requests in multi-party settings,” inProceedings of the 6th interna- tional conference on Human-robot interaction, 2011, pp. 167–168

    2011

  30. [38]

    Human- robot action teams: A behavioral analysis of team dynamics,

    A. Haripriyan, R. Jamshad, P. Ramaraj, and L. D. Riek, “Human- robot action teams: A behavioral analysis of team dynamics,” in2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1443–1448

    2024

  31. [39]

    Rapidly built medical crash cart! lessons learned and impacts on high-stakes team collaboration in the emergency room,

    A. Taylor, T. Tanjim, M. J. Sack, M. Hirsch, K. Cheng, K. Ching, J. S. George, T. Roumen, M. F. Jung, and H. R. Lee, “Rapidly built medical crash cart! lessons learned and impacts on high-stakes team collaboration in the emergency room,” in2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conf...

    2025

  32. [40]

    Micbot: A peripheral robotic object to shape conversational dynamics and team performance,

    H. Tennent, S. Shen, and M. Jung, “Micbot: A peripheral robotic object to shape conversational dynamics and team performance,” in2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2019, pp. 133–142

    2019

  33. [41]

    Learning gaze be- haviors for balancing participation in group human-robot interactions,

    S. Gillet, M. T. Parreira, M. V ´azquez, and I. Leite, “Learning gaze be- haviors for balancing participation in group human-robot interactions,” in2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2022, pp. 265–274

    2022

  34. [42]

    Towards explainable proactive robot interactions for groups of people in unstructured environments,

    T. Love, A. Andriella, and G. Aleny `a, “Towards explainable proactive robot interactions for groups of people in unstructured environments,” inCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2024, pp. 697–701

    2024

  35. [43]

    Models for multiparty engagement in open- world dialog,

    D. Bohus and E. Horvitz, “Models for multiparty engagement in open- world dialog,” inProceedings of the SIGDIAL 2009 Conference, 2009, pp. 225–234

    2009

  36. [44]

    Facilitating multiparty dialog with gaze, gesture, and speech,

    ——, “Facilitating multiparty dialog with gaze, gesture, and speech,” inInternational Conference on Multimodal Interfaces and the Work- shop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, 2010, pp. 1–8

    2010

  37. [45]

    Cultural differences in how an engagement-seeking robot should approach a group of people,

    M. P. Joosse, R. W. Poppe, M. Lohse, and V . Evers, “Cultural differences in how an engagement-seeking robot should approach a group of people,” inProceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Collaboration across boundaries: culture, distance & technology, 2014, pp. 121–130

    2014

  38. [46]

    Krippendorff,Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology

    K. Krippendorff,Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Autonomous disengagement classification and repair in multiparty child-robot interaction,

    I. Leite, M. McCoy, M. Lohani, N. Salomons, K. McElvaine, C. Stokes, S. Rivers, and B. Scassellati, “Autonomous disengagement classification and repair in multiparty child-robot interaction,” in2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication...

    2016

  40. [48]

    Embodied mediation in group ideation–a gestural robot can facilitate consensus- building,

    T. V . Pham, T. H. Weisswange, and M. Hassenzahl, “Embodied mediation in group ideation–a gestural robot can facilitate consensus- building,” inProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 2024, pp. 2611–2632

    2024

  41. [49]

    A multimodal robot-driven meeting facilitation system for group decision-making sessions,

    A. Shamekhi and T. Bickmore, “A multimodal robot-driven meeting facilitation system for group decision-making sessions,” in2019 international conference on multimodal interaction, 2019, pp. 279– 290

    2019

  42. [50]

    Taking initiative in human-robot action teams: How proactive robot behaviors affect teamwork,

    R. Jamshad, A. Haripriyan, A. Sonti, S. Simkins, and L. D. Riek, “Taking initiative in human-robot action teams: How proactive robot behaviors affect teamwork,” inCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2024, pp. 559– 562

    2024

  43. [51]

    Robotic gaze responsiveness in multiparty teamwork,

    F. Correia, J. Campos, F. S. Melo, and A. Paiva, “Robotic gaze responsiveness in multiparty teamwork,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 27–36, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Robot- mediated multi-party conversation aimed at affect improvement for psychiatric patients,

    K. Ochi, D. Lala, K. Inoue, T. Kawahara, and H. Kumazaki, “Robot- mediated multi-party conversation aimed at affect improvement for psychiatric patients,”IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 2025

    2025

  45. [53]

    Using robots to moderate team conflict: the case of repairing violations,

    M. F. Jung, N. Martelaro, and P. J. Hinds, “Using robots to moderate team conflict: the case of repairing violations,” inProceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, 2015, pp. 229–236

    2015

  46. [54]

    Maintaining

    X. Chen, X. Yuan, H. Zhang, R. Zheng, and W. Wei, “Maintaining” balanced” conflict: Proactive intervention strategies of ai voice agents in online collaboration of temporary design teams,” inProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2025, pp. 1–19

    2025

  47. [55]

    Engagement in human-agent interaction: An overview,

    C. Oertel, G. Castellano, M. Chetouani, J. Nasir, M. Obaid, C. Pelachaud, and C. Peters, “Engagement in human-agent interaction: An overview,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 7, p. 92, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Four-participant group conversation: A facilitation robot controlling engagement den- sity as the fourth participant,

    Y . Matsuyama, I. Akiba, S. Fujie, and T. Kobayashi, “Four-participant group conversation: A facilitation robot controlling engagement den- sity as the fourth participant,”Computer Speech & Language, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2015

    2015

  49. [57]

    Making way and making sense: Including newcomers in interaction,

    D. Pillet-Shore, “Making way and making sense: Including newcomers in interaction,”Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 152– 175, 2010

    2010

  50. [58]

    Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team,

    M. L. Traeger, S. Strohkorb Sebo, M. Jung, B. Scassellati, and N. A. Christakis, “Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 12, pp. 6370–6375, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    Robot gaze can mediate participation imbalance in groups with differ- ent skill levels,

    S. Gillet, R. Cumbal, A. Pereira, J. Lopes, O. Engwall, and I. Leite, “Robot gaze can mediate participation imbalance in groups with differ- ent skill levels,” inProceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2021, pp. 303–311

    2021

  52. [60]

    What if a social robot excluded you? using a conversational game to study social exclusion in teen- robot mixed groups,

    S. Mongile, G. Pusceddu, F. Cocchella, L. Lastrico, G. Belgiovine, A. Tanevska, F. Rea, and A. Sciutti, “What if a social robot excluded you? using a conversational game to study social exclusion in teen- robot mixed groups,” inCompanion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE Interna- tional Co...

    2023

  53. [61]

    Predicting positions of people in human- robot conversational groups,

    H. Hedayati and D. Szafir, “Predicting positions of people in human- robot conversational groups,” in2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2022, pp. 402–411

    2022

  54. [62]

    Reform: Recognizing f-formations for social robots,

    H. Hedayati, A. Muehlbradt, D. J. Szafir, and S. Andrist, “Reform: Recognizing f-formations for social robots,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 11 181–11 188

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.