Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Advancing Responsible Innovation in Agentic AI: A study of Ethical Frameworks for Household Automation

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Abstract AI ethics become concrete smart-home design patterns

desk verdict A plausible but sloppy survey: the synthesis and checklists have some value, but placeholder citations and an injected instruction make the operationalization claim unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15901 v1 pith:CJOCO5DZ submitted 2025-07-21 cs.AI cs.CYcs.MA

Joydeep Chandra , Satyam Kumar Navneet This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CYcs.MA
keywords agenticAIhouseholdautomationethicsresponsibleinnovationvulnerableusergroupsexplainabilitygranularconsentparticipatorydesign
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 survey argues that the abstract ethical principles commonly invoked for AI—beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explicability—are too vague to guide the design of proactive household agents. Its central claim is that these principles must be translated into concrete patterns: explanations matched to each user's cognitive style, consent that is granular and contextual rather than a one-time click, and override controls that are discoverable and reversible. To derive these patterns, the paper combines responsible-innovation frameworks, human-centered AI, and participatory design, then applies the result to three vulnerable user groups: elderly people, children, and neurodivergent individuals. The review also proposes using NLP analysis of social-media data to surface user concerns and closes with a roadmap for embedding ethics from the start of development. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as a bridge between high-level AI ethics and the practical work of building trustworthy home automation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a set of design imperatives—tailored explainability, granular dynamic consent, and robust override or interruption controls—presented as the operationalization of abstract ethical principles into system architecture. The paper defines these as the load-bearing patterns connecting ethical values to concrete UI/UX and governance decisions, supported by participatory design methods and Human-in-the-Loop checkpoints. For each vulnerable group, the same patterns are specialized: adaptive multi-modal explanations, age-appropriate consent with parental oversight, and need-to-know data sharing with simple, reversible controls.

What would settle it

A controlled field experiment comparing a smart-home agent built with the proposed patterns against a standard agent, measuring trust and agency for elderly and neurodivergent users over several months, would falsify the central claim if it showed no advantage, or if users reported consent prompts as fatiguing and override controls as unused.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a translation layer: it identifies tailored explainability, granular consent, and robust override as the concrete design imperatives that operationalize the five ethical principles for agentic AI in households. It argues that for vulnerable users these imperatives take specific forms—adaptive multi-modal explanations for neurodivergent users, age-appropriate consent for children, need-to-know data sharing for the elderly—and that these forms can be derived from existing frameworks rather than invented from scratch. The paper claims this derivation is the missing step that keeps ethical principles from remaining purely rhetorical, and it presents the derivation as practical guidance for designers of household automation.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that elderly people, children, and neurodivergent users can each be treated as coherent categories with shared risks and needs, and that participatory design involving these groups will reliably improve system outcomes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Smart-home designers would gain a concrete checklist for ethical alignment without re-deriving the patterns from first principles each time.
  • Household agents built with granular consent and robust override should show measurably higher user trust and agency, particularly for elderly and neurodivergent users.
  • The proposed NLP-driven social-media analysis would provide a feedback channel for detecting emerging ethical concerns before they escalate.
  • The roadmap implies that ethics cannot be a post-hoc compliance step; it must shift to ethics-by-design through multidisciplinary teams and participatory workshops.
  • Multi-agent simulations with family-specific negotiation rules could reveal household-level conflicts before real deployment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper implies that generic explainability metrics, such as fidelity of local surrogate models, matter less for vulnerable users than perceived clarity and control; a testable extension would measure subjective comprehension against interaction quality, not just model faithfulness.
  • Grouping elderly, children, and neurodivergent users into three coherent categories may hide substantial within-group variance; a follow-up study could compare effect sizes of the proposed patterns across subgroups and care settings.
  • The reliance on social-media NLP is promising but under-specified; one could test whether VADER and BERTopic-derived concerns actually change design decisions when fed into participatory workshops.
  • Granular consent and constant override prompts may impose interaction costs that offset their benefits; a quantitative model of consent fatigue could identify the threshold at which the patterns become counterproductive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a survey-style review of ethical frameworks for agentic AI in household automation. It argues that abstract ethical principles (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, explicability) are insufficiently operationalized and proposes three concrete design imperatives—tailored explainability, granular consent, and robust override controls—together with participatory design and NLP-based social media analysis as supporting methods. The paper targets vulnerable user groups (elderly, children, neurodivergent individuals) and concludes with recommendations for ethical-by-design, participatory co-design, dynamic consent, bias mitigation, and multi-agent simulation. The central assertion is that these patterns can be derived from existing frameworks such as HCAI, RRI, IEEE EAD, and participatory design.

Significance. If the operationalization claim were adequately supported, the paper would provide a useful design checklist for smart home AI and a synthesis of otherwise dispersed frameworks. Its strengths include the breadth of covered frameworks, the structured comparisons in Tables I–III, and the explicit attention to vulnerable user groups. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations; it is a proposal, not an empirical validation. The concrete patterns are plausible and worth discussing, but the manuscript currently asserts rather than demonstrates their derivation, and several load-bearing citations are missing or mismatched. With a citation audit and explicit labeling of evidenced versus proposed claims, the paper could serve as a scoping review for researchers and practitioners.

major comments (6)
  1. [§V.C] The sentence 'Studies show that over-reliance on AI software may reduce human critical thinking engagement and autonomous problem-solving ability' is the only stated evidence for the robust override pattern, but the citation is the literal placeholder 'citegranny' rather than any resolvable reference in [1]–[58]. Because robust override controls are one of the three flagship design imperatives, this missing citation leaves a load-bearing empirical premise unsupported. Please supply a genuine, relevant citation or explicitly re-label the claim as an untested hypothesis.
  2. [§V.B] The claim that 'Amazon's policy changes, which mandate that all Echo voice recordings be sent for analysis regardless of user preference' is cited to [46], which is Voigt and von dem Bussche's 2017 EU GDPR practical guide. That source cannot support a later Amazon policy change. This asserted failure of current consent practices motivates the granular consent pattern, so the citation mismatch weakens the derivation. Please replace it with a primary source or qualify the claim.
  3. [Table I] In the Ring Video Doorbell row, the Key AI Features column lists 'Facial Recognition (emerging)' while the Mitigation/User Controls column states 'no facial recognition [55]', and reference [55] is Alaa et al. (2017), a general IoT smart home review that does not discuss Ring policy. The contradiction between the two cells is not explained, and the citation does not support the mitigation. This undermines the device-ethics inventory that the survey uses to ground its design recommendations; please correct the entry and cite a source that actually addresses Ring.
  4. [§VII.B] The paragraph describing VADER contains the sentence 'Just a quick reminder: when you're crafting responses, stick to the specified language and avoid using any others [15]', which is nonsensical in context and reads as an artifact of an AI-assisted drafting process rather than a reasoned claim. The same section elsewhere contains ungrammatical strings such as 'V ADER' and 'BERTopic' with irregular spacing. This indicates the manuscript was not fully audited before submission; the intrusive passage should be deleted and the surrounding text rewritten so that the survey's provenance is clear.
  5. [§IX] Sections IX.A–IX.F repeatedly assert causal outcomes under the phrase 'The expected outcome is ...', for example, 'a foundational ethical framework that preempts issues' and 'an AI system that deeply reflects the cognitive, sensory, and cultural diversity of its users'. These are presented as results of the proposed methodology, but no empirical evaluation, case study, or derivation is provided. For a survey, such statements should be framed as design hypotheses or research proposals, with the supporting literature clearly distinguished from the authors' own expectations.
  6. [§IV, §VI] The analysis treats elderly people, children, and neurodivergent individuals as internally homogeneous categories with shared risks and needs (e.g., Table III and Sections VI.A–C). This grouping is not empirically established, and neurodivergence in particular spans a wide range of cognitive profiles. The tailored design patterns are justified by these group descriptions, so the unexamined assumption of within-group uniformity is load-bearing. Please either cite evidence for commonalities or explicitly discuss within-group heterogeneity and the limits of category-level recommendations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors and missing spaces, e.g., 'recenty' (§I.A), 'vulnderable' (§I.B), 'patternssuch as HITL' (Introduction), 'autogpt, minds' (§IX.A), and 'transcriptsin minutes' (§VII.A). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [§V.B] The citation '[9]' for Governors and Trust indicators UI/UX patterns appears after 'Governors and Trust indicators UI/UX patterns'; reference [9] is Cath (2018), a governance article, and the connection should be clarified or replaced.
  3. [§VII.B] Section VII.B uses inconsistent typography for tool names: 'V ADER' and 'BERTopic' appear with irregular spacing; please standardize to 'VADER' and 'BERTopic'.
  4. [§IX.A] The phrase 'letting people check againautogpt, minds' is garbled and should be rewritten.
  5. [References] Reference [44] is formatted differently from other entries ('Brown, T. B. and Mann, B. and Ryder, N. ...') and could be tidied to match the reference style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the survey's design patterns are applications of external ethical frameworks and participatory-design literature, not inputs recycled as outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that abstract principles (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explicability) can be translated into concrete design patterns such as tailored explainability, granular consent, and robust override controls for household agentic AI. This is an operationalization and synthesis argument, not a formal derivation or a fitted prediction. The principles are imported from external sources such as Floridi and Cowls [16], IEEE EAD [31], RRI [18], and HCAI [56], and the proposed patterns are applications of those principles rather than quantities fitted to data and then re-reported. No equation, fitted parameter, uniqueness theorem, or by-construction equivalence is present. The paper does cite the authors' own prior work ([11], [12], [14], [58]) in several places, and some citations are imprecise (e.g., [58] for Amazon Echo data, [14] for lived-experience claims, and the literal placeholder 'citegranny' in Section V.C). These are evidence-quality and citation-audit problems, not circularity: the central recommendations do not reduce to the authors' own prior results. The 'citegranny' placeholder and the injected instruction in Section VII.B further show that the manuscript was not fully audited, but an unresolved citation is not an input-output equivalence. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper rests on normative assumptions from the cited ethics literature rather than on fitted parameters or invented entities. The main burden is the unvalidated assumption that the recommended design patterns will achieve their intended ethical outcomes.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The five ethical principles from Floridi and Cowls (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, explicability) are the correct and sufficient normative foundation for agentic AI.
    Invoked in Section III.A as a generally accepted model; the paper does not defend this choice against competing ethical frameworks.
  • ad hoc to paper Human-Centered AI and Participatory Design methods reliably produce fairer and safer outcomes for vulnerable users.
    Stated as benefits in Sections IV.A and IV.B without empirical evaluation; all 'expected outcomes' in Section IX rest on this premise.
  • domain assumption Vulnerable groups (elderly, children, neurodivergent) face higher risks and share enough commonalities to be designed for together.
    Used throughout Sections IV and VI to motivate tailored design, but the paper does not show evidence of these shared risks or needs.
  • ad hoc to paper Social media analysis with NLP can reveal ethical concerns relevant to smart home AI.
    Section VII proposes this as a data-driven path, but no data or results are presented; the claim relies on cited prior work including the authors' own [58].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advancing Responsible Innovation in Agentic AI: A study of Ethical Frameworks for Household Automation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJOCO5DZ

@misc{pith2026250715901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advancing Responsible Innovation in Agentic AI: A study of Ethical Frameworks for Household Automation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJOCO5DZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15901}
}
read the original abstract

The implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in household environments, especially in the form of proactive autonomous agents, brings about possibilities of comfort and attention as well as it comes with intra or extramural ethical challenges. This article analyzes agentic AI and its applications, focusing on its move from reactive to proactive autonomy, privacy, fairness and user control. We review responsible innovation frameworks, human-centered design principles, and governance practices to distill practical guidance for ethical smart home systems. Vulnerable user groups such as elderly individuals, children, and neurodivergent who face higher risks of surveillance, bias, and privacy risks were studied in detail in context of Agentic AI. Design imperatives are highlighted such as tailored explainability, granular consent mechanisms, and robust override controls, supported by participatory and inclusive methodologies. It was also explored how data-driven insights, including social media analysis via Natural Language Processing(NLP), can inform specific user needs and ethical concerns. This survey aims to provide both a conceptual foundation and suggestions for developing transparent, inclusive, and trustworthy agentic AI in household automation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart for Designing an Inclusive Agentic AI in Household Automation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Berrada, M

    Adadi, A. and Berrada, M. (2018). Peeking Inside the Black- Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access, PP:1–1

    work page 2018

  2. [58]

    K., El Filali, R., Laing, M., and Hanna, A

    Chandra, J., Algazinov, A., Navneet, S. K., El Filali, R., Laing, M., and Hanna, A. (2025). WebTrust: An AI-Driven Data Scoring System for Reliable Information Retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12072. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12072

    arXiv 2025

  3. [46]

    and von dem Bussche, A

    V oigt, P. and von dem Bussche, A. (2017).The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Practical Guide . Springer Cham, 1 edition

    work page 2017

  4. [55]

    A., Zaidan, B

    Alaa, M., Zaidan, A. A., Zaidan, B. B., Talal, M., and Kiah, M.L.M. (2017). A review of smart home applications based on Internet of Things. Journal of Network and Computer Applica- tions, 97, 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2017.08.017

    doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.08.017 2017

  5. [15]

    Farzindar, A. A. and Inkpen, D. (2020). Natural Language Processing for Social Media, Third Edition . Springer Cham, 3 edition

    work page 2020

  6. [2]

    Aranda, A., Florin, U., Yamamoto, Y ., Eriksson, Y ., and Sand- str¨om, K. (2022). Co-Designing with AI in Sight. Proceedings of the Design Society , 2:101–110

    work page 2022

  7. [3]

    Barfield, W., Weng, Y .-H., and Pagallo, U. (2024). Issues and Concerns for Human–Robot Interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Law, Policy, and Regulation for Human–Robot Interaction, pages 171–390. Cambridge University Press

    work page 2024

  8. [4]

    Bellamy, R. K. E., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilovic, A., Nagar, S., Ramamurthy, K. N., Richards, J., Saha, D., Sattigeri, P., Singh, M., Varshney, K. R., and Zhang, Y . (2018). AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understand- ing, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Bi...

    arXiv 2018

Show all 59 references
  1. [5]

    C., Gabriel, I., and Mohamed, S

    Birhane, A., Isaac, W., Prabhakaran, V ., Diaz, M., Elish, M. C., Gabriel, I., and Mohamed, S. (2022). Power to the People? Op- portunities and Challenges for Participatory AI. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimiz...

    2022

  2. [6]

    A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M

    Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., Donahue, C., Doumbouya, M.,...

    2022 arXiv

  3. [7]

    Borsotti, V ., Begel, A., and Bjørn, P. (2024). Neurodiversity and the Accessible University: Exploring Organizational Barriers, Access Labor and Opportunities for Change. Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact., 8(CSCW1):172:1–172:27

    2024

  4. [8]

    Castellani, A., Benassi, M., and Balboni, G. (2024). Ethical Principles in Artificial Intelligence for Children: A Protocol for a Scoping Review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Ethics , pages 124–137

    2024

  5. [9]

    Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 376:20180080

    2018

  6. [10]

    C ¸ aylı, O. (2024). An AI-Powered Enhanced Elderly Care (SilverCompanion). Orclever Proceedings of Research and Development, 5:668–673

    2024

  7. [11]

    Chandra, J., Manhas, P., Kaur, R., and Sahay, R. (2025a). Care Compass: Monitoring made easy, Care made effective. In 2025 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Tech- nologies in Computing, Electrical and Electronics (IITCEE) , pages 1–7

    2025

  8. [12]

    Chandra, J., Kaur, R., and Sahay, R. (2025b). Integrated Framework for Equitable Healthcare AI: Bias Mitigation, Com- munity Participation, and Regulatory Governance. In 2025 IEEE 14th International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), pages 819–825

    2025

  9. [13]

    Chandra, J., Manhasi, P., Kaurl, R., and Sahay, R. (2025c). A unified approach to large language model optimization: Meth- ods, metrics, and benchmarks. In Progressive Computational Intelligence, Information Technology and Networking , pages 7. CRC Press, 1st edition

    2025

  10. [14]

    and Walia, R

    Chandra, J. and Walia, R. (2024). Audio-Based Symptom Classification Using Deep Learning: The V-Cold Approach. In 2024 IEEE 16th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN) , pages 238– 245

    2024

  11. [16]

    and Cowls, J

    Floridi, L. and Cowls, J. (2019). A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. Harvard Data Science Review , 1(1)

    2019

  12. [17]

    J., and Lewis, D

    Golpayegani, D., Pandit, H. J., and Lewis, D. (2023). Compar- ison and Analysis of 3 Key AI Documents: EU’s Proposed AI Act, Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI), and ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management System. In Longo, L. and O’Reilly, R., editors, Artificial Intelligence and ...

    2023

  13. [18]

    Go ˜ni, J., Rodrigues, E., Parga, M., Illanes, M., and Mill ´an, M. (2024). Tooling with ethics in technology: a scoping review. Journal of Responsible Innovation , 11

    2024

  14. [19]

    Grootendorst, M. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic model- ing with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794

    2022 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Y ., and Turek, M

    Gunning, D., V orm, E., Wang, J. Y ., and Turek, M. (2021). DARPA’s explainable AI (XAI) program: A retrospective. Ap- plied AI Letters , 2(4)

    2021

  16. [21]

    Hagendorff, T. (2020). The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines. Minds and Machines , 30

    2020

  17. [22]

    Hung, L., Zhao, Y ., Alfares, H., and Shafiekhani, P. (2025). Ethical considerations in the use of social robots for supporting mental health and wellbeing in older adults in long-term care. Frontiers in Robotics and AI , 12

    2025

  18. [23]

    and Gilbert, E

    Hutto, C. and Gilbert, E. (2014). V ADER: A Parsimonious Rule-Based Model for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Text. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8(1):216–225

    2014

  19. [24]

    and Haluza, D

    Jungwirth, D. and Haluza, D. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and the Sustainable Development Goals: An Exploratory Study in the Context of the Society Domain. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications , 16:91–112

    2023

  20. [25]

    K., Niess, J., Lallemand, C., Markopoulos, P., Fis- chbach, A., and Koenig, V

    Lehnert, F. K., Niess, J., Lallemand, C., Markopoulos, P., Fis- chbach, A., and Koenig, V . (2022). Child–Computer Interaction: From a systematic review towards an integrated understanding of interaction design methods for children. International Journal of Child-Computer Inte...

    2022

  21. [26]

    Li, G., Hammoud, H. A. A. K., Itani, H., Khizbullin, D., and Ghanem, B. (2023). CAMEL: Communicative Agents for ”Mind” Exploration of Large Language Model Society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17760

    2023 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Liu, X., Wang, J., Sun, J., Yuan, X., Dong, G., Di, P., Wang, W., and Wang, D. (2023). Prompting Frameworks for Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12785

    2023 arXiv

  23. [28]

    and Lee, S.-I

    Lundberg, S. and Lee, S.-I. (2017). A Unified Approach to In- terpreting Model Predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.07874

    2017 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Mandlekar, A., Garrett, C., Xu, D., and Fox, D. (2023). Human- in-the-Loop Task and Motion Planning for Imitation Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16014

    2023 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Minaee, S., Mikolov, T., Nikzad, N., Chenaghlu, M., Socher, R., Amatriain, X., and Gao, J. (2025). Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06196

    2025 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Morand ´ın-Ahuerma, F. (2023). IEEE: a global standard as an ethical AI initiative. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Ethics , pages 127–136

    2023

  27. [32]

    Morley, J., Elhalal, A., Garcia, F., Balogh, A., M ¨okander, J., Kiron, D., Ziesche, M., Wacker, F., Hinds, R., Marinucci, A., Corazza, M., Taddeo, M., and Floridi, L. (2021). Ethics as a Service: A Pragmatic Operationalisation of AI Ethics. Minds and Machines, 31

    2021

  28. [33]

    Morris, M. R. (2020). AI and accessibility. Commun. ACM , 63(6):35–37

    2020

  29. [34]

    Pattnaik, N., Li, S., and Nurse, J. R. C. (2023). A Survey of User Perspectives on Security and Privacy in a Home Networking Environment. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(9):180:1–180:38

    2023

  30. [35]

    and Yu, J

    Qi, X. and Yu, J. (2025). Participatory Design in Human- Computer Interaction: Cases, Characteristics, and Lessons. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25, New York, NY , USA. Association for Computing Machinery

    2025

  31. [36]

    T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C

    Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016). ”Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.04938

    2016 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V ., and Floridi, L. (2021). The Chinese approach to artifi- cial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & SOCIETY , 36, pages 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00146-020-00992-2

    2021

  33. [38]

    Delgado, F., Yang, S., Madaio, M., and Yang, Q. (2023). The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Con- ference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, Article No. 37. htt...

    2023 doi

  34. [39]

    Rudrapal, D., Jamatia, A., Chakma, K., Das, A., and Gamb ¨ack, B. (2015). Sentence Boundary Detection for Social Media Text. In Sharma, D. M., Sangal, R., and Sherly, E., editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 254–260, T...

    2015

  35. [40]

    and Sharkey, N

    Sharkey, A. and Sharkey, N. (2010). Granny and the robots: Eth- ical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14:27–40

    2010

  36. [41]

    Shen, Y ., Song, K., Tan, X., Li, D., Lu, W., and Zhuang, Y . (2023). HuggingGPT: Solving AI Tasks with ChatGPT and its Friends in Hugging Face. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17580

    2023 arXiv

  37. [42]

    and Coughlin, J

    Shibata, T. and Coughlin, J. F. (2014). Trends of Robot Therapy with Neurological Therapeutic Seal Robot, PARO. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics , 26(4):418–425

    2014

  38. [43]

    Yuan, S., Coghlan, S., Lederman, R., and Waycott, J. (2023). Ethical Design of Social Robots in Aged Care: A Literature Review Using an Ethics of Care Perspective. International Journal of Social Robotics , 15, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12369-023-01053-6

    2023

  39. [44]

    Brown, T. B. and Mann, B. and Ryder, N. and Subbiah, M. and Kaplan, J. and Dhariwal, P. and Neelakantan, A. and Shyam, P. and Sastry, G. and Askell, A. and Agarwal, S. and Herbert- V oss, A. and Krueger, G. and Henighan, T. and Child, R. and Ramesh, A. and Ziegler, D. M. and W...

    2020 arXiv

  40. [45]

    and Longo, L

    Vilone, G. and Longo, L. (2021). Notions of explainability and evaluation approaches for explainable artificial intelligence. Information Fusion, 76:89–106

    2021

  41. [47]

    K.-W., and Lim, E.-P

    Wang, L., Xu, W., Lan, Y ., Hu, Z., Lan, Y ., Lee, R. K.-W., and Lim, E.-P. (2023). Plan-and-Solve Prompting: Improving Zero- Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning by Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04091

    2023 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Wang, Z., Ma, Y ., Song, Y ., Huang, Y ., Liang, G., and Zhong, X. (2024). The Utilization of Natural Language Processing for Analyzing Social Media Data in Nursing Research: A Scoping Review. Journal of Nursing Management

    2024

  43. [49]

    L., Xu, K., Liu, Y ., Arriaga, R

    Wang, L., Anyi, C. L., Xu, K., Liu, Y ., Arriaga, R. I., and Goel, A. K. (2025). Explainable AI for Daily Scenarios from End-Users’ Perspective: Non-Use, Concerns, and Ideal Design. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference , pages 2328–2349, New ...

    2025

  44. [50]

    Weerts, H., Dud ´ık, M., Edgar, R., Jalali, A., Lutz, R., and Madaio, M. (2023). Fairlearn: Assessing and Improving Fairness of AI Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16626

    2023 arXiv

  45. [51]

    H., Hashimoto, T., Vinyals, O., Liang, P., Dean, J., and Fedus, W

    Wei, J., Tay, Y ., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Metzler, D., Chi, E. H., Hashimoto, T., Vinyals, O., Liang, P., Dean, J., and Fedus, W. (2022). Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682

    2022 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Werner, K., Kender, K., Scheepmaker, L., and Frauenberger, C. (2024). Technologies Supporting Social Play in Neurodiverse Groups of Children. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference , pages 218–231, New York, NY , USA. Association for C...

    2024

  47. [53]

    Wu, J., Gan, W., Chen, Z., Wan, S., and Yu, P. S. (2023). Multimodal Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13165

    2023 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Yang, H., Yue, S., and He, Y . (2023). Auto-GPT for Online Decision Making: Benchmarks and Additional Opinions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02224

    2023 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Xu, W., Dainoff, M., Ge, L., and Gao, Z. (2021). Transitioning to human interaction with AI systems: New challenges and opportunities for HCI professionals to enable human-centered AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05424

    2021 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Barredo Arrieta, A., D ´ıaz-Rodr´ıguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., and Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportuni- ties and challe...

    2020 doi

  51. [200]

    Springer Nature Switzerland

Pith tools

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