Optimising user engagement in highly automated virtual assistants to improve energy management and consumption

This paper presents a multi-dimensional taxonomy of levels of automation and reparation specifically adapted to Virtual Assistants (VAs) in the context of Human-Human-Interaction (HHI). Building from this framework, the main output of this study provides a method of calculation which helps to generate a trust rating by which this score can be used to optimise users' engagement. The authors believe that this framework could play a critical role in optimising energy efficiency in both management and consumption, particular attention has been given to the relevance of contextual events and dynamism in enhancing trust. For instance by understanding that trust formation is a dynamic process that starts before the user's first contact with the system, and continues long thereafter. Furthermore, following the evolving nature of the system, factors affecting trust and the system itself change during user interactions over time; thus, systems need to be able to adapt and evolve. Present work is being dedicated to further understanding of how contexts and its derivative unintended consequences affect trust in highly automated VAs in the area of energy consumption.

[1]  N Moray,et al.  Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[2]  David A. Wagner,et al.  Obfuscated Gradients Give a False Sense of Security: Circumventing Defenses to Adversarial Examples , 2018, ICML.

[3]  Mykel J. Kochenderfer,et al.  Reluplex: An Efficient SMT Solver for Verifying Deep Neural Networks , 2017, CAV.

[4]  Patrick Moriarty,et al.  Big Data for Urban Sustainability , 2018 .

[5]  P A Hancock,et al.  Imposing limits on autonomous systems , 2017, Ergonomics.

[6]  Holly H. Brower,et al.  Cross-Cultural Measurement of Supervisor Trustworthiness: An Assessment of Measurement Invariance across Three Cultures , 2007 .

[7]  Sandra Wachter,et al.  A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI , 2018 .

[8]  Tyler H. Shaw,et al.  Trust Repair Strategies with Self-Driving Vehicles: An Exploratory Study , 2018, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

[9]  E. Osnos,et al.  Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy , 2018 .

[10]  Steven E. Daniels,et al.  When Talk Is Not Cheap: Substantive Penance and Expressions of Intent in Rebuilding Cooperation , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[11]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[12]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust in automation. I: Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems , 1994 .

[13]  Stephen Jia Wang.  Fields Interaction Design (Fid): The Answer to Ubiquitous Computing Supported Environments in the Post-Information Age , 2013 .

[14]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust , 1998 .

[15]  Stephen Jia Wang,et al.  Addressing Accountability in Highly Autonomous Virtual Assistants , 2019 .

[16]  Lu Wang,et al.  Trust and Reliance on an Automated Combat Identification System , 2009, Hum. Factors.

[17]  Rüdiger Ehlers,et al.  Formal Verification of Piece-Wise Linear Feed-Forward Neural Networks , 2017, ATVA.

[18]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Amar R. Marathe,et al.  From Trust in Automation to Decision Neuroscience: Applying Cognitive Neuroscience Methods to Understand and Improve Interaction Decisions Involved in Human Automation Interaction , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[20]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  Pushmeet Kohli,et al.  Adversarial Risk and the Dangers of Evaluating Against Weak Attacks , 2018, ICML.

[22]  Regina A. Pomranky,et al.  The role of trust in automation reliance , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[23]  Mustapha Mouloua,et al.  Measuring Trust of Autonomous Vehicles: A Development and Validation Study , 2015, HCI.

[24]  Matthew Mirman,et al.  Differentiable Abstract Interpretation for Provably Robust Neural Networks , 2018, ICML.

[25]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators , 1978 .

[26]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  The Seven Deadly Myths of "Autonomous Systems" , 2013, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[27]  Stephen Jia Wang,et al.  From Apology to Compensation: A Multi-level Taxonomy of Trust Reparation for Highly Automated Virtual Assistants , 2019 .

[28]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[29]  Patrick Moriarty,et al.  Urban Health and Well-Being Challenges , 2018 .

[30]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature , 2007 .

[31]  D. Ferrin,et al.  Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[32]  Tyler H. Shaw,et al.  From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction , 2018, Ergonomics.

[33]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Individual Trust in Online Firms: Scale Development and Initial Test , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[34]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Issues in Human–Automation Interaction Modeling: Presumptive Aspects of Frameworks of Types and Levels of Automation , 2018 .

[35]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[36]  N. Moray,et al.  Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[37]  A. Pradhan,et al.  Psychosocial factors associated with intended use of automated vehicles: A simulated driving study. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[38]  Rosemarie E. Yagoda,et al.  You Want Me to Trust a ROBOT? The Development of a Human–Robot Interaction Trust Scale , 2012, International Journal of Social Robotics.