Agent-Based Simulation of Trust Development in Human-Robot Teams: An Empirically-Validated Framework

Integrating mobile robots into human teams promises significant capability improvements for tasks such as searching hazardous environments. Unlike existing teleoperated robots, future robot systems will increasingly be endowed with some level of artificial intelligence (AI), giving them a degree of autonomy in how they pursue mission goals. This autonomy could make a human-agent (robot) team more effective but also put inter-agent trust under strain if robots make a mistake, or (appear to) pursue task priorities that conflict with the team's best interest. During a mission, agents' trust states are anticipated to vary according to the situation as understood by each teammate (trustor). If component-level (agent) or system-level trust falls below sufficient levels for cooperative tasks to be completed, it could critically affect mission success . We argue that active trust management will be an important precondition for the success of human-robot teams (HRTs, a subcategory of human-agent teams with embodied agents), especially in dynamic, high-risk environments. We present a trust satisficing perspective which acknowledges and attempts to account for the fluctuating, multi-faceted, and context-dependent nature of trust and trust requirements even under normal operating conditions. Our outline of a trust management framework for human-robot teaming includes online measurement of proxy metrics for trust, closed-loop adaptation of robot behavior, and variable autonomy to give space for human responsibility in situations requiring value judgements. We refer to a recent experimental exploration of 'swift trust' and a novel behavioral trust metric for HRT, and we highlight issues for further investigation.

As language-model agents increasingly work in teams, each agent must decide how much to trust its teammates. Yet we lack a standard way to measure trust between AI agents. We propose a behavioral measure based on costly verification. In a cooperative survival game, checking a teammate's work consumes resources, while trusting a wrong answer can be fatal. Relative to a memoryless version of the same model, reduced verification provides an observable measure of trust. Using this framework, we study trust formation, breakage, and recovery across six frontier model snapshots. When paired with a consistently reliable teammate, four snapshots (Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.1, and Gemini 3.1 Pro) reduce verification by roughly 60-85%, whereas two smaller snapshots show little or no such adjustment. Failures reverse this discount, but models differ in how they respond. Some concentrate renewed scrutiny on the culprit, while others become more cautious toward the entire team. Recovery is slower than formation, and clustered failures sustain suspicion far longer than the same number of failures spread apart. These differences have practical consequences. Models that form trust verify less, decide more quickly, and achieve higher payoffs in our environment. By contrast, persistent over-verification is associated with indecision rather than safety. Our results show that trust dispositions can be measured before deployment and suggest that calibration, rather than maximal suspicion, should be the central concern in the governance of multi-agent AI systems.

Trust plays a central role in human--robot collaboration, yet its formation is rarely examined under the constraints of fully autonomous interaction. This pilot study investigated how interaction policy influences trust during in-person collaboration with a social robot operating without Wizard-of-Oz control or scripted repair. Participants completed a multi-stage collaborative task with a mobile robot that autonomously managed spoken-language dialogue, affect inference, and task progression. Two interaction policies were compared: a responsive policy, in which the robot proactively adapted its dialogue and assistance based on inferred interaction state, and a neutral, reactive policy, in which the robot provided only direct, task-relevant responses when prompted. Responsive interaction was associated with significantly higher post-interaction trust under viable communication conditions, despite no reliable differences in overall task accuracy. Sensitivity analyses indicated that affective and experiential components of trust were more sensitive to communication breakdown than evaluative judgments of reliability, and that as language-mediated interaction degraded, the trust advantage associated with responsiveness attenuated and ratings became less clearly interpretable as calibrated evaluations of collaborative competence. These findings suggest that trust in autonomous human--robot interaction emerges from process-level interaction dynamics and operates within constraints imposed by communication viability, highlighting the importance of evaluating trust under real autonomy conditions when designing interactive robotic systems.