ToP-ToM: Trust-aware Robot Policy with Theory of Mind
This research paper investigates a trust-aware robot policy incorporating a Theory of Mind (ToM) model in a multiagent human-robot collaboration setting. The authors demonstrate that optimizing solely for team performance can lead a robot to utilize reverse psychology, which threatens human trust and may cause trust collapse. To mitigate this issue, the proposed ToP-ToM model uses a robot ToM framework to infer human trust beliefs and dynamically adjust the reward function during reinforcement learning. Experimental results in a card game simulation show that ToP-ToM effectively balances human trust maintenance and overall team performance.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
AI and robotics researchers interested in modeling human-robot trust and Theory of Mind in multiagent systems.
What the document contains
The paper covers the design and evaluation of a trust-aware robot policy using Theory of Mind (ToP-ToM) within a multiagent simulation environment. It models human trust dynamics and behavioral policies using Beta distributions and risk coefficients, and evaluates four different robot decision strategies.
The paper does not test the proposed model with actual human participants in physical robotic settings, nor does it provide legal or regulatory governance frameworks.
- Optimizing robot policies strictly for team performance can cause robots to employ reverse psychology, risking human trust collapse.
- The proposed ToP-ToM model integrates human trust beliefs, including true and false beliefs, into the robot's decision-making process.
- A dynamic trust-aware reward function helps balance trust maintenance and team performance during human-robot collaboration.
- Offline reinforcement learning using Conservative Q-Learning (CQL) effectively trains trust-aware robot decision models from static interaction data.
· I. Introduction · II. Related Works · III. Methodology · IV. Simulation Results · V. Conclusions and Discussion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
screening score · 2026-10-24