Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016:8:385-408.
doi: 10.1007/s12559-015-9365-5. Epub 2015 Dec 23.

Trusted Autonomy and Cognitive Cyber Symbiosis: Open Challenges

Hussein A Abbass  1 , Eleni Petraki  2 , Kathryn Merrick  1 , John Harvey  1 , Michael Barlow  1
Affiliations
Review

Trusted Autonomy and Cognitive Cyber Symbiosis: Open Challenges

Hussein A Abbass et al. Cognit Comput. 2016.

Abstract

This paper considers two emerging interdisciplinary, but related topics that are likely to create tipping points in advancing the engineering and science areas. Trusted Autonomy (TA) is a field of research that focuses on understanding and designing the interaction space between two entities each of which exhibits a level of autonomy. These entities can be humans, machines, or a mix of the two. Cognitive Cyber Symbiosis (CoCyS) is a cloud that uses humans and machines for decision-making. In CoCyS, human-machine teams are viewed as a network with each node comprising humans (as computational machines) or computers. CoCyS focuses on the architecture and interface of a Trusted Autonomous System. This paper examines these two concepts and seeks to remove ambiguity by introducing formal definitions for these concepts. It then discusses open challenges for TA and CoCyS, that is, whether a team made of humans and machines can work in fluid, seamless harmony.

Keywords: Autonomy; Cognitive Cyber Symbiosis; Human–machine teaming; Trust; Trusted Autonomous System; Trusted Autonomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A model for successful human–machine teaming
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A summary of the literature review on trust
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
An overall encompassing trust model for humans and machines
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Levels of automation adopted from Sheridan and Verplank [39]
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Relationship between trust and autonomy
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
A pictorial representation of CoCyS as a cloud made of humans and machines
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Architecture of a Cookie
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Functional view of trusted autonomous vehicles and trusted autonomous analytics
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chandrasekaran B, Conrad JM. Human–robot collaboration: a survey. In: SoutheastCon 2015, IEEE 2015. p. 1–8.
    1. Huhns MN, Buell DA. Trusted autonomy. IEEE Internet Comput. 2002;3:92–95. doi: 10.1109/MIC.2002.1003138. - DOI
    1. Morrison EW, Robinson SL. When employees feel betrayed: a model of how psychological contract violation develops. Acad Manag Rev. 1997;22(1):226–256.
    1. Delgado MR, Frank RH, Phelps EA. Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nature Neurosci. 2005;8(11):1611–1618. doi: 10.1038/nn1575. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Deutsch M. The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1977.

LinkOut - more resources