Background: The ongoing adoption and use of digital interventions offer promising opportunities to meet the growing demand for mental health support. The effectiveness, implementation, and usage of these interventions depend on how well they are designed and evaluated. However, given the emerging nature of design research in this area, there is still no clear consensus on the specific principles and guidelines for developing digital mental health interventions (DMHIs). There seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the best practices for designing and evaluating these tools. Objective: We aimed to investigate and report on the design principles and evaluation approaches used in digital interventions specific to mental health care. Additionally, we sought to outline how these principles and approaches are applied in research. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for scoping reviews. The literature search was performed in 2 electronic databases, SCOPUS and Web of Science, across 3 iterations from January 2024 to January 2025. A total of 2 independent reviewers screened and selected papers based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by data extraction from the selected studies. The data were then synthesized by categorizing the papers according to the primary research aim of each study. The inclusion criteria covered studies involving populations with mental health challenges or users of DMHIs, any digital tools for mental health care, and principles or strategies related to the design, evaluation, or implementation of DMHIs. Results: Our search identified 401 papers, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria for this review. Among these, 11 focused on evaluation studies, while 6 covered both design and evaluation studies (mixed). An iterative user-centered development process, expert inclusion, usability testing, specification of design elements, and user tracking and feedback were identified as common design principles used in studies focused on DMHIs. Evaluation approaches were shaped by the evaluation goal, which influenced the chosen methodologies. We also summarize the recommendations for implementation highlighted in some studies. Based on our findings, we propose 8 guidelines emphasizing stakeholder involvement in the development process and the need for clear justifications for design decisions, among other considerations. Conclusions: Design principles used in DMHI development include user-centered development, expert inclusion, and usability testing, while evaluation approaches often rely on randomized controlled trials to assess efficacy. Qualitative and mixed-method approaches are commonly adopted by studies to capture user experience and bridge both process and outcome measures. We recommend that future research explicitly report its design justification and adopt a multiperspective approach in the research and design of DMHIs.

Smart home technologies embed values such as sustainability, comfort, privacy, and security, which can sometimes conflict with one another, considering the complexities of domestic environments. This paper investigates the potential implications of these value conflicts and the corresponding design challenges. Through an enactment session and co-speculations with professional actors, we explored what it means to navigate multiple values simultaneously, live with products that impose their own values, and manage value conflicts both with and among smart products. The findings challenge the seamless and harmonious vision of smart homes conceived by technologists, proposing shifts in the common narrative: from value alignment to value transparency, from service provision to mutual care, and from autonomy to responsiveness. We discuss that acknowledging value conflicts, rather than eliminating them, is an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of users and home environments and guide the design of smart home technologies.

Human values capture what people and societies perceive as desirable, transcend specific situations and serve as guiding principles for action. People’s value systems motivate their positions on issues concerning the economy, society and politics among others, influencing the arguments they make. Identifying the values behind arguments can therefore help us find common ground in discourse and uncover the core reasons behind disagreements. Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable performance across language generation and analysis. However, leveraging LLMs in sociotechnical systems that assist with discourse and argumentation necessitates systematically evaluating their ability to analyse and identify the values behind arguments, an under-explored research direction. Using a multi-level human value taxonomy inspired by the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values, we present a systematic and critical evaluation of GPT-3.5-turbo in human value identification from a dataset of multi-cultural arguments, across the zero-shot, few-shot and chain-of-thought prompting strategies, carrying forward from prior research on this task which leveraged a fine-tuned BERT model. We observe that prompting strategies exhibit performance levels close to, but still behind fine-tuning for value classification. We also detail some challenges associated with value classification with LLMs, offering potential directions for future research.

One of the key issues in human-robot collaboration is the development of computational models that allow robots to predict and adapt to human behavior. Much progress has been achieved in developing such models, as well as control techniques that address the autonomy problems of motion planning and decision-making in robotics. However, the integration of computational models of human behavior with such control techniques still poses a major challenge, resulting in a bottleneck for efficient collaborative human-robot teams. In this context, we present a novel architecture for human-robot collaboration: Adaptive Robot Motion for Collaboration with Humans using Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement learning (ARMCHAIR). Our solution leverages adversarial inverse reinforcement learning and model predictive control to compute optimal trajectories and decisions for a mobile multi-robot system that collaborates with a human in an exploration task. During the mission, ARMCHAIR operates without human intervention, autonomously identifying the necessity to support and acting accordingly. Our approach also explicitly addresses the network connectivity requirement of the human-robot team. Extensive simulation-based evaluations demonstrate that ARMCHAIR allows a group of robots to safely support a simulated human in an exploration scenario, preventing collisions and network disconnections, and improving the overall performance of the task.

This handbook presents the concept of ‘meaningful human control’ (MHC) over AI systems from the perspectives of (i) philosophy and ethics, (ii) law and governance, and (iii) design and engineering. The introductory chapter addresses the motivations and recent developments in MHC, introducing each perspective and related chapters. These three disciplinary perspectives scrutinize how MHC intertwines with philosophical debates on moral responsibility, societal concerns regarding control over technological advancements in legal frameworks, and the engineering complexities of designing and developing AI systems while ensuring human control and responsibility. Additionally, cross-cutting aspects on MHC over AI systems are also introduced and discussed through (iv) interdisciplinary and systemic perspectives. By offering a contextualized introduction to the perspectives considered in this handbook, this chapter aims to present the handbook’s various approaches and points of interest for a diverse audience, highlighting potential entry points into this multidisciplinary volume.

Modelling causal responsibility in multi-agent spatial interactions is crucial for safety and efficiency of interactions of humans with autonomous agents. However, current formal metrics and models of responsibility either lack grounding in ethical and philosophical concepts of responsibility, or cannot be applied to spatial interactions. In this work we propose a metric of causal responsibility which is tailored to multi-agent spatial interactions, for instance interactions in traffic. In such interactions, a given agent can, by reducing another agent's feasible action space, influence the latter. Therefore, we propose feasible action space reduction (FeAR) as a metric of causal responsibility among agents. Specifically, we look at ex-post causal responsibility for simultaneous actions. We propose the use of Moves de Rigueur (MdR) - a consistent set of prescribed actions for agents - to model the effect of norms on responsibility allocation. We apply the metric in a grid world simulation for spatial interactions and show how the actions, contexts, and norms affect the causal responsibility ascribed to agents. Finally, we demonstrate the application of this metric in complex multi-agent interactions. We argue that the FeAR metric is a step towards an interdisciplinary framework for quantifying responsibility that is needed to ensure safety and meaningful human control in human-AI systems.

Although popular and effective, large language models (LLM) are characterised by a performance vs. transparency trade-off that hinders their applicability to sensitive scenarios. This is the main reason behind many approaches focusing on local post-hoc explanations recently proposed by the XAI community. However, to the best of our knowledge, a thorough comparison among available explainability techniques is currently missing, mainly for the lack of a general metric to measure their benefits. We compare state-of-the-art local post-hoc explanation mechanisms for models trained over moral value classification tasks based on a measure of correlation. By relying on a novel framework for comparing global impact scores, our experiments show how most local post-hoc explainers are loosely correlated, and highlight huge discrepancies in their results—their “quarrel” about explanations. Finally, we compare the impact scores distribution obtained from each local post-hoc explainer with human-made dictionaries, and point out that there is no correlation between explanation outputs and the concepts humans consider as salient.

In this paper, we problematize popular narratives of driving automation. Whether positive or negative, these propagate simplistic assumptions about human abilities and reinforce technocratic approaches to mobility innovation. We build on narrative approaches to participatory research and adversarial design, to explore how design-led confrontation can create opportunities for reflection on implicit assumptions and narratives that stakeholders may refer to when discussing and making decisions about automated driving technologies. Specifically, we discuss the results of four focus groups where we used contestational artifacts to promote critical discussions and confront taken-for-granted beliefs among stakeholders. We reflect on the results to distill methodological insight and design recommendations for conducting adversarial participatory design research as a way towards confronting dominant narratives. Together with the methodological approach, the main contribution of this work, we also provide a set of narrative tensions that can be used to question common beliefs surrounding automated driving futures.