Trust is a key dimension of human-robot interaction (HRI), and has often been studied in the HRI community. A common challenge arises from the difficulty of assessing trust levels in ecologically invalid environments: we present in this paper two independent laboratory studies, totalling 160 participants, where we investigate the impact of different types of errors on resulting trust, using both behavioural and subjective measures of trust. While we found a (weak) general effect of errors on reported and observed level of trust, no significant differences between the type of errors were found in either of our studies. We discuss this negative result in light of our experimental protocols, and argue for the community to move towards alternative methodologies to assess trust.

In this paper, we introduce an approach to validate the functional equivalence of planning domain models. Validating the functional equivalence of planning domain models is the problem of formally confirming that two planning domain models can be used to solve the same set of problems. The need for techniques to validate the functional equivalence of planning domain models has been highlighted in previous research and has applications in model learning, development and extension. We prove the soundness and completeness of our method. We also develop D-VAL, an automatic functional equivalence validation tool for planning domain models. Empirical evaluation shows that D-VAL validates the functional equivalence of most examined domains in less than five minutes. Additionally, we provide a benchmark to evaluate the feasibility and scalability of this and future related work.