As large language models (LLMs) increasingly interact with each other, most notably in multi-agent setups, we may expect (and hope) that `trust' relationships develop between them, mirroring trust relationships between human colleagues, friends, or partners. Yet, though prior work has shown LLMs to be capable of identifying emotional connections and recognizing reciprocity in trust games, little remains known about (i) how different strategies to build trust compare, (ii) how such trust can be measured implicitly, and (iii) how this relates to explicit measures of trust. We study these questions by relating implicit measures of trust, i.e. susceptibility to persuasion and propensity to collaborate financially, with explicit measures of trust, i.e. a dyadic trust questionnaire well-established in psychology. We build trust in three ways: by building rapport dynamically, by starting from a prewritten script that evidences trust, and by adapting the LLMs' system prompt. Surprisingly, we find that the measures of explicit trust are either little or highly negatively correlated with implicit trust measures. These findings suggest that measuring trust between LLMs by asking their opinion may be deceiving. Instead, context-specific and implicit measures may be more informative in understanding how LLMs trust each other.

As human-agent teaming (HAT) research continues to grow, computational methods for modeling HAT behaviors and measuring HAT effectiveness also continue to develop. One rising method involves the use of human digital twins (HDT) to approximate human behaviors and socio-emotional-cognitive reactions to AI-driven agent team members. In this paper, we address three research questions relating to the use of digital twins for modeling trust in HATs. First, to address the question of how we can appropriately model and operationalize HAT trust through HDT HAT experiments, we conducted causal analytics of team communication data to understand the impact of empathy, socio-cognitive, and emotional constructs on trust formation. Additionally, we reflect on the current state of the HAT trust science to discuss characteristics of HAT trust that must be replicable by a HDT such as individual differences in trust tendencies, emergent trust patterns, and appropriate measurement of these characteristics over time. Second, to address the question of how valid measures of HDT trust are for approximating human trust in HATs, we discuss the properties of HDT trust: self-report measures, interaction-based measures, and compliance type behavioral measures. Additionally, we share results of preliminary simulations comparing different LLM models for generating HDT communications and analyze their ability to replicate human-like trust dynamics. Third, to address how HAT experimental manipulations will extend to human digital twin studies, we share experimental design focusing on propensity to trust for HDTs vs. transparency and competency-based trust for AI agents.

Many measures of human-robot trust have proliferated across the HRI research literature because each attempts to capture the factors that impact trust despite its many dimensions. None of the previous trust measures, however, address the systems of inequity and structures of power present in HRI research or attempt to counteract the systematic biases and potential harms caused by HRI systems. This position paper proposes a participatory and social justice-oriented approach for the design and evaluation of a trust measure. This proposed process would iteratively co-design the trust measure with the community for whom the HRI system is being created. The process would prioritize that community's needs and unique circumstances to produce a trust measure that accurately reflects the factors that impact their trust in a robot.

Trust in robots is widely believed to be imperative for the adoption of robots into people's daily lives. It is, therefore, understandable that the literature of the last few decades focuses on measuring how much people trust robots -- and more generally, any agent - to foster such trust in these technologies. Researchers have been exploring how people trust robot in different ways, such as measuring trust on human-robot interactions (HRI) based on textual descriptions or images without any physical contact, during and after interacting with the technology. Nevertheless, trust is a complex behaviour, and it is affected and depends on several factors, including those related to the interacting agents (e.g. humans, robots, pets), itself (e.g. capabilities, reliability), the context (e.g. task), and the environment (e.g. public spaces vs private spaces vs working spaces). In general, most roboticists agree that insufficient levels of trust lead to a risk of disengagement while over-trust in technology can cause over-reliance and inherit dangers, for example, in emergency situations. It is, therefore, very important that the research community has access to reliable methods to measure people's trust in robots and technology. In this position paper, we outline current methods and their strengths, identify (some) weakly covered aspects and discuss the potential for covering a more comprehensive amount of factors influencing trust in HRI.

Primary care serves as patients' first point of contact with the healthcare system and is a continuing focal point of comprehensive, accessible, and community-based care [1]. More than just a gate-keeping process for specialist referrals, it has been widely recognized for its focus on caring for the longterm health of patients rather than solely for treating specific diseases or conditions. As such, primary care helps deliver more equitable health outcomes across populations and meets 80-90% of individuals' health needs throughout their lives [2]. To this end, a recent special report from the Economist stated that "good primary care is an essential precondition for a decent healthcare system" [3]. The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasized several defining features for effective and socially productive primary care, including comprehensiveness, person-centeredness, and continuity of care [4]. In particular, person-centeredness refers to the "clinical method of participatory democracy" that allows patients to participate in decisions that affect their health.