Learning Nonverbal Cues in Multiparty Social Interactions for Robotic Facilitators

Antonio Lech Martin-Ozimek; Isuru Jayarathne; Jouhyeong Chew; Su Larb Mon

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 22 references

Learning Nonverbal Cues in Multiparty Social Interactions for Robotic Facilitators

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Implicit Behavior Cloning can be replicated to generate a facilitator's gaze cues in multiparty social interactions, outperforming a standard behavior-cloning baseline on success and smoothness while fitting ground…

desk verdict A modest replication of IBC for gaze generation in social robotics, with a real reproducibility gap in the action-to-setpoint conversion that undercuts the headline success numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10857 v1 pith:I62EABUB submitted 2025-01-18 cs.RO cs.LG

Antonio Lech Martin-Ozimek , Isuru Jayarathne , Su Larb Mon , Jouhyeong Chew This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.LG

keywords ImplicitBehaviorCloningnonverbalcuegenerationgazeroboticfacilitatormultipartyinteractionenergy-basedmodelhuman-robot

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

The paper tries to show that Implicit Behavior Cloning (IBC), an energy-based behavior-cloning technique, transfers from simulated particle control to a real social setting: generating the gaze movements of a human facilitator leading a multiparty conversation. The authors train both IBC and a standard mean-squared-error behavior-cloning baseline on recorded sessions with teacher, musician, and music-teacher facilitators, then compare how often each policy reaches the observed gaze target and how smooth the resulting gaze trajectories are. They report that IBC reaches the target more often on average (0.96 vs 0.93) and produces smoother pitch and yaw trajectories by the SPARC metric, while the baseline fits the ground-truth trajectory better on $R^2$. The point of the exercise is that a robot could take over the facilitator's nonverbal role when no human facilitator is present.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is Implicit Behavior Cloning (IBC): an energy-based model $E_\theta(o,a)$ scores observation-action pairs, and at inference an initial action sampled from a uniform distribution is refined by Langevin MCMC gradient updates to find a low-energy action. Training uses negative action samples and an InfoNCE loss. The policy outputs setpoints that a PD controller tracks in a particle environment adapted from the original IBC paper, with episodes of 50 frames and the facilitator's gaze target at frame 50. The same MLP, environment, and evaluation metrics are used for the MSE baseline so that the comparison isolates the implicit versus explicit policy update.

What would settle it

Re-run the same training and evaluation with the PD controller replaced by a head-dynamics model calibrated to human neck movement, or with a physical robot head, and compare which policy wins the success metric. If the implicit policy no longer beats the MSE baseline, the reported replication rests on the simulator rather than on gaze behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Implicit Behavior Cloning, an energy-based method that refines candidate actions by gradient-based sampling, can be successfully replicated for generating nonverbal gaze cues from real multiparty facilitation data. Using gaze pitch and yaw extracted from recorded sessions with three facilitator types, the authors report an average success metric of 0.96 for IBC versus 0.93 for an MSE behavior-cloning baseline, aligning with the 0.95 success level reported in the original IBC study. On SPARC smoothness, IBC values are closer to zero for both pitch and yaw, which the paper interprets as more natural motion. The paper acknowledges that on $R^2$ the MSE baseline better matches the ground-truth trajectories (0.76 vs 0.73 average pitch; 0.56 vs 0.41 average yaw), and explains this as IBC reaching the correct final gaze position by a different, smoother route.

Load-bearing premise

The results hinge on the assumption that the particle-environment controller, which steers a simulated point toward setpoint goals, is a faithful enough model of real human head and gaze motion for success in that environment to count as good gaze behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A robot facilitator could use IBC to choose where to look, succeeding at hitting observed gaze target directions at about the same rate as the original simulated IBC results.
Because IBC-produced gaze trajectories are smoother under SPARC, generated nonverbal behavior may appear more natural in human-robot interaction, although the paper does not yet test human perception.
The comparison shows that an explicit MSE baseline can fit ground-truth trajectories more tightly on $R^2$ while still missing goals more often, so the choice of evaluation metric changes which method looks better.
Extending the same method to full body pose is not yet viable: the paper reports that pose generation required an unreasonably high success threshold and lost humanoid quality due to controller overshoot and action-space complexity.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the same energy-based refinement could be applied per joint to overcome the pose-generation failure, since the paper attributes that failure to PD overshoot and action-space complexity rather than to the implicit objective itself.
A testable extension would separate controller effects from policy effects by re-running the success metric with different setpoint-tracking gains; if the IBC advantage disappears under a more realistic head-dynamics model, the reported gain is partly an artifact of the simulator.
The unexplained musician-facilitator advantage could be probed by inspecting per-session action ranges and gaze variability; the paper notes it has not investigated why that session type learns more easily.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a small, honest replication study. It applies Florence et al.'s implicit behavior cloning to facilitator gaze in a multiparty dataset and reports that IBC beats an MSE baseline on average success (0.96 vs 0.93) and produces smoother trajectories per SPARC. The contribution is mainly empirical—a new domain for IBC, not new algorithms. It will be useful to HRI practitioners who want to try IBC, but there are a few soft spots that need attention before the claims are solid.

What's good: (1) Real human demonstration data from the FUMI-MPF dataset, not synthetic. (2) Three evaluation metrics, with honest reporting that MSE matches ground truth better on R2 while IBC wins on success and smoothness. (3) Transparent about the failed pose extension. (4) Use of the public IBC codebase helps replication.

The main issue: the action representation. Section II-B0b says expert actions are the differences in facilitator pitch/yaw between consecutive frames, i.e., deltas. Section II-C3 says the environment receives actions from the policy as setpoints for the particle to achieve. A delta is not a setpoint. The paper never states whether the delta is added to the current gaze position to form a setpoint or whether the policy actually outputs absolute targets. This matters because the average success metric depends on the particle reaching a target; if a delta were fed directly as an absolute setpoint, success would be near zero. So the reported 0.96 ASM presupposes an undocumented conversion. The authors likely have a working pipeline, but the experiment is not reproducible from the text as written, and the central claim cannot be verified.

Other soft spots: no error bars or statistical tests, so the 0.96 vs 0.93 gap could be noise. The dataset description is confusing—seven sessions for gaze and nine additional for pose, but it's unclear how they split for the main results. Hyperparameters come from the repo rather than the paper, which is fine, but should be stated explicitly. No comparison to prior gaze generation models, so we don't know if IBC is better than simpler baselines for this specific facilitation task.

Overall, this is a decent workshop-level paper with a real empirical result, but the missing conversion detail is a blocker for full verification. A serious referee could pin this down, and then it would be a solid contribution to HRI practice. I'd send it to review with the expectation of major revisions.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a replication of Implicit Behavior Cloning (IBC), originally proposed by Florence et al. (CoRL 2022), applied to the generation of nonverbal gaze cues for a robotic facilitator in multiparty social interactions. Using a subset of the FUMI-MPF dataset with teacher, musician, and music-teacher facilitators, the authors train an energy-based IBC policy and an explicit MSE behavior-cloning policy with the same MLP backbone and a PD-controlled particle environment. They evaluate both policies with the average success metric (ASM), R2, and SPARC, and report that IBC outperforms MSE on ASM (0.96 vs. 0.93) and produces smoother trajectories according to SPARC, while MSE achieves higher R2 values for trajectory fit. The paper concludes that IBC was successfully replicated and extended to gaze generation for social interaction tasks.

Significance. If the central comparison is reliable, the paper provides a useful data point: IBC can be transferred from the original particle-control tasks to a real social-signal domain, and the authors honestly report a metric (R2) on which the MSE baseline wins. The manuscript is also transparent about the absence of human evaluators and about the challenges of extending the method to pose generation. However, the current evidentiary value is weakened by an unspecified action-to-setpoint conversion and by the complete absence of variance or significance information, so the central claim that IBC outperforms MSE on the success metric is not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)

[II-B0b, II-C3] Section II-B0b defines expert actions as 'the differences in the facilitator’s pitch and yaw between consecutive frames' and later as gaze velocity, while Section II-C3 says the environment 'receives actions from the policy as setpoints for the particle to achieve.' A delta (or velocity) is not a setpoint, and the paper never states whether the policy output is added to the current gaze position to form the target setpoint or is itself treated as an absolute target. This ambiguity is load-bearing: the ASM values in Table I (0.96 vs. 0.93) presuppose that the particle is commanded toward the correct target, and the opposite interpretation would make the reported success rates impossible. Please specify the exact conversion and verify that it was applied identically in training and inference.
[III-1, II-E2] Section III-1 and Table I report ASM values as point estimates, but the paper gives no standard deviation, confidence interval, per-fold breakdown, or statistical test. Given the small dataset described in Section II-B0a (seven sessions, two-fold validation), the 0.03 gap between IBC and MSE could easily arise from sampling noise. Please provide per-session or per-fold numbers and, if appropriate, a paired significance test; alternatively, state explicitly that the difference is not statistically evaluated.
[II-D1, II-D2] Section II-D1 and II-D2 state that hyperparameters are taken from the public repository of [11], but no values are listed (learning rate, MCMC step count, noise schedule, batch size, layer sizes, dropout rate). Because this is a replication study, one of the central contributions is verifying that the method works under the original configuration; without these details, the reader cannot reproduce the training or assess whether the 'replication' used settings comparable to Florence et al. Please include a hyperparameter table and the exact MLP architecture.
[II-E2, III-2] Section II-E2 introduces R2 as a measure of how well predicted trajectories match ground truth, but the text does not define what is being compared: policy outputs, integrated gaze trajectories, or rolled-out environment states. The very low yaw R2 values in Table II (e.g., 0.13 for Teacher IBC) are hard to interpret without this definition, and Section III-2 uses them to qualify the ASM results. Please state the precise R2 computation and the units of the underlying signals.

minor comments (6)

[Table I] The 'Reported' column in Table I is not defined in the text; state that it refers to the ASM reported by Florence et al. and explain why that comparison is meaningful for a different task.
[II-D1] The expression '{amax, amin}' should be written as an interval [amin, amax]; the sentence about clipping is also ambiguous and should specify whether actions are clipped before or after the Langevin updates.
[III-3] Since the SPARC values in Table III are negative, the phrase 'values closer to zero are smoother' should clarify whether the displayed values are raw SPARC scores or a scaled variant.
[References] References [16] and [18] are duplicate entries for the same L2CS-Net paper; keep one and cite consistently in the text.
[References] Reference [6] is incomplete: 'F. Agent, An agent that facilitates crowd discussion' has no author list, no year, and no publication venue.
[II-D1, II-E1] The Langevin update equations use both a¯i and a−i for negative samples; unify the notation to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IBC/MSE comparison is an externally benchmarked replication, with only a non-load-bearing dataset self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The policies are trained on expert demonstrations from the FUMI-MPF dataset and evaluated on held-out sessions; no free parameter is fitted to the reported metrics. The ASM, R2, and SPARC scores are computed from the generated trajectories using fixed definitions taken from the IBC work [11] and standard movement-smoothness references [13-15]. The 0.02-radian success threshold is imported from [11] as a benchmark, not tuned to make IBC win, and both models are evaluated under the same environment and metric. The IBC-vs-MSE comparison is therefore not forced by construction. The only self-citation, [17], is used as dataset provenance rather than as a load-bearing theoretical claim. A reproducibility caveat exists: the paper does not explicitly state how policy outputs, described as consecutive-frame deltas, are converted into the particle environment's setpoints. That is a correctness and reproducibility concern about the evaluation pipeline, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central claim depends on inherited hyperparameters and thresholds from prior work, plus several domain assumptions about gaze estimation, representation, and the simulation environment.

free parameters (3)

ASM success threshold = 0.02 radians
Taken from Florence et al.'s particle environment; not re-derived for gaze behavior, yet determines whether an episode is scored a success.
Episode length = 50 frames
Chosen by hand; sets the tracking horizon and the goal setpoint as the 50th frame's gaze.
Pose success threshold = 500.0 pixels
Ad hoc threshold used only for the pose extension, admitted as unreasonable in Section III-3.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption L2CS-Net provides accurate gaze estimates for all participants
The entire dataset of gaze directions is generated by L2CS-Net; errors would propagate into training and evaluation (Section II-Bb).
domain assumption Gaze behavior can be reduced to 2D pitch/yaw spherical coordinates without losing the cues relevant for facilitation
The representation simplifies the observation and action space; if higher-dimensional cues (e.g., blink, saccade) matter, the model cannot capture them (Section II-A).
domain assumption The particle environment with PD controller from Florence et al. is a valid surrogate for gaze tracking dynamics
The environment is directly reused from [11] and used to simulate the facilitator's gaze; its fit to real human head movement is not validated (Section II-C3).
domain assumption The FUMI-MPF dataset sessions are representative of multiparty facilitation
Only 7 (or 16, the text is ambiguous) sessions are used; the musician facilitator consistently performs better for unexplained reasons, suggesting dataset idiosyncrasies (Section III).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Nonverbal Cues in Multiparty Social Interactions for Robotic Facilitators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I62EABUB

@misc{pith2026250110857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Nonverbal Cues in Multiparty Social Interactions for Robotic Facilitators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I62EABUB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10857}
}

read the original abstract

Conventional behavior cloning (BC) models often struggle to replicate the subtleties of human actions. Previous studies have attempted to address this issue through the development of a new BC technique: Implicit Behavior Cloning (IBC). This new technique consistently outperformed the conventional Mean Squared Error (MSE) BC models in a variety of tasks. Our goal is to replicate the performance of the IBC model by Florence [in Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning, 164:158-168, 2022], for social interaction tasks using our custom dataset. While previous studies have explored the use of large language models (LLMs) for enhancing group conversations, they often overlook the significance of non-verbal cues, which constitute a substantial part of human communication. We propose using IBC to replicate nonverbal cues like gaze behaviors. The model is evaluated against various types of facilitator data and compared to an explicit, MSE BC model. Results show that the IBC model outperforms the MSE BC model across session types using the same metrics used in the previous IBC paper. Despite some metrics showing mixed results which are explainable for the custom dataset for social interaction, we successfully replicated the IBC model to generate nonverbal cues. Our contributions are (1) the replication and extension of the IBC model, and (2) a nonverbal cues generation model for social interaction. These advancements facilitate the integration of robots into the complex interactions between robots and humans, e.g., in the absence of a human facilitator.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10857 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[11]

Implicit behavioral cloning,

P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. A. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson, “Implicit behavioral cloning,” in Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Faust, D. Hsu, and G. Neumann, Eds., vol. 164. PMLR, 08–11 Nov 2022, pp. 158–168. [Online]. Available: htt...

work page 2022
[1]

Artificial intelligence as a double-edged sword: Wielding the power principles to maximize its positive effects and minimize its negative effects,

J. J. Chen and J. C. Lin, “Artificial intelligence as a double-edged sword: Wielding the power principles to maximize its positive effects and minimize its negative effects,” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 146–153, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Public procurement of artificial intelligence systems: new risks and future proofing,

M. Hickok, “Public procurement of artificial intelligence systems: new risks and future proofing,” AI & society , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1213–1227, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Enhancing ai-assisted group decision making through llm-powered devil’s advocate,

C.-W. Chiang, Z. Lu, Z. Li, and M. Yin, “Enhancing ai-assisted group decision making through llm-powered devil’s advocate,” in Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , 2024, pp. 103–119

2024
[4]

Storybuddy: A human-ai collaborative chatbot for parent-child interactive storytelling with flexible parental involvement,

Z. Zhang, Y . Xu, Y . Wang, B. Yao, D. Ritchie, T. Wu, M. Yu, D. Wang, and T. J.-J. Li, “Storybuddy: A human-ai collaborative chatbot for parent-child interactive storytelling with flexible parental involvement,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2022, pp. 1–21

2022
[5]

Peergpt: Probing the roles of llm-based peer agents as team moderators and participants in children’s collaborative learning,

J. Liu, Y . Yao, P. An, and Q. Wang, “Peergpt: Probing the roles of llm-based peer agents as team moderators and participants in children’s collaborative learning,” in Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2024, pp. 1–6

2024
[6]

An agent that facilitates crowd discussion,

F. Agent, “An agent that facilitates crowd discussion,” 2021

work page 2021
[7]

The importance of non-verbal communication,

D. Phutela, “The importance of non-verbal communication,” IUP Journal of Soft Skills , vol. 9, no. 4, p. 43, 2015

2015

Show all 22 references

[8]

Analysis of eye gaze reasons and gaze aversions during three-party conversations,

C. Ishi and T. Shintani, “Analysis of eye gaze reasons and gaze aversions during three-party conversations,” in Interspeech 2021 , 08 2021, pp. 1972–1976

2021
[9]

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

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

2022
[10]

Robot-supported collaborative learning (rscl): Social robots as teaching assistants for higher education small group facilitation,

R. Rosenberg-Kima, Y . Koren, and G. Gordon, “Robot-supported collaborative learning (rscl): Social robots as teaching assistants for higher education small group facilitation,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 6, 01 2020

2020
[12]

Exploring the limitations of behavior cloning for autonomous driving,

F. Codevilla, E. Santana, A. M. L ´opez, and A. Gaidon, “Exploring the limitations of behavior cloning for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2019, pp. 9329–9338

2019
[13]

Measurement properties of movement smoothness metrics for upper limb reaching movements in people with moderate to severe subacute stroke,

G. Cornec, M. Lempereur, J. Mensah-Gourmel, J. Robertson, L. Miramand, B. Medee, S. Bellaiche, R. Gross, J.-M. Gracies, O. Remy-Neris, and N. Bayle, “Measurement properties of movement smoothness metrics for upper limb reaching movements in people with moderate to severe subac...

2024
[14]

Sparc metrics provide mobility smoothness assessment in oldest-old with and without a history of falls: a case control study,

A. I. Figueiredo, G. Balbinot, F. O. Brauner, A. Schiavo, R. R. Baptista, A. S. Pagnussat, K. Hollands, and R. G. Mestriner, “Sparc metrics provide mobility smoothness assessment in oldest-old with and without a history of falls: a case control study,” Frontiers in Physiology,...

2020
[15]

Smoothness metric during reach-to-grasp after stroke: part 2. longitudinal association with motor impairment,

M. Saes, M. I. M. Refai, J. Van Kordelaar, B. L. Scheltinga, B.-J. F. Van Beijnum, J. B. J. Bussmann, J. H. Buurke, P. H. Veltink, C. G. M. Meskers, E. E. H. Van Wegen, and G. Kwakkel, “Smoothness metric during reach-to-grasp after stroke: part 2. longitudinal association with...

2021 doi
[16]

L2cs-net: Fine-grained gaze estimation in unconstrained environments,

A. A. Abdelrahman, T. Hempel, A. Khalifa, and A. Al-Hamadi, “L2cs-net: Fine-grained gaze estimation in unconstrained environments,” arXiv (Cornell University) , Jan. 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2203.03339

2022 arXiv
[17]

Who to teach a robot to facilitate multi-party social interactions?

J. Y . Chew and K. Nakamura, “Who to teach a robot to facilitate multi-party social interactions?” in Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , ser. HRI ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 127–131. [...

2023
[18]

L2cs-net: Fine-grained gaze estimation in unconstrained environments,

A. A. Abdelrahman, T. Hempel, A. Khalifa, A. Al-Hamadi, and L. Dinges, “L2cs-net: Fine-grained gaze estimation in unconstrained environments,” in 2023 8th International Conference on Frontiers of Signal Processing (ICFSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 98–102

2023
[19]

Learning from demonstration,

S. Schaal, “Learning from demonstration,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , M. Mozer, M. Jordan, and T. Petsche, Eds., vol. 9. MIT Press, 1996. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/paper/1996/file/ 68d13cf26c4b4f4f932e3eff990093b...

1996
[20]

Implicit generation and modeling with energy based models,

Y . Du and I. Mordatch, “Implicit generation and modeling with energy based models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d 'Alch´e-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, Eds., vol. 32. Curran Associates, Inc.,
[21]

Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,

A. Van Den Oord, Y . Li, and O. Vinyals, “Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,” Jul. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03748

2018 arXiv
[2019]

Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/ paper/2019/file/378a063b8fdb1db941e34f4bde584c7d-Paper.pdf

[Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/ paper/2019/file/378a063b8fdb1db941e34f4bde584c7d-Paper.pdf

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Implicit behavioral cloning,

P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. A. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson, “Implicit behavioral cloning,” in Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Faust, D. Hsu, and G. Neumann, Eds., vol. 164. PMLR, 08–11 Nov 2022, pp. 158–168. [Online]. Available: htt...

work page 2022

[2] [1]

Artificial intelligence as a double-edged sword: Wielding the power principles to maximize its positive effects and minimize its negative effects,

J. J. Chen and J. C. Lin, “Artificial intelligence as a double-edged sword: Wielding the power principles to maximize its positive effects and minimize its negative effects,” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 146–153, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [2]

Public procurement of artificial intelligence systems: new risks and future proofing,

M. Hickok, “Public procurement of artificial intelligence systems: new risks and future proofing,” AI & society , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1213–1227, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [3]

Enhancing ai-assisted group decision making through llm-powered devil’s advocate,

C.-W. Chiang, Z. Lu, Z. Li, and M. Yin, “Enhancing ai-assisted group decision making through llm-powered devil’s advocate,” in Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , 2024, pp. 103–119

2024

[5] [4]

Storybuddy: A human-ai collaborative chatbot for parent-child interactive storytelling with flexible parental involvement,

Z. Zhang, Y . Xu, Y . Wang, B. Yao, D. Ritchie, T. Wu, M. Yu, D. Wang, and T. J.-J. Li, “Storybuddy: A human-ai collaborative chatbot for parent-child interactive storytelling with flexible parental involvement,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2022, pp. 1–21

2022

[6] [5]

Peergpt: Probing the roles of llm-based peer agents as team moderators and participants in children’s collaborative learning,

J. Liu, Y . Yao, P. An, and Q. Wang, “Peergpt: Probing the roles of llm-based peer agents as team moderators and participants in children’s collaborative learning,” in Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2024, pp. 1–6

2024

[7] [6]

An agent that facilitates crowd discussion,

F. Agent, “An agent that facilitates crowd discussion,” 2021

work page 2021

[8] [7]

The importance of non-verbal communication,

D. Phutela, “The importance of non-verbal communication,” IUP Journal of Soft Skills , vol. 9, no. 4, p. 43, 2015

2015