mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement

arXiv 2509.02624 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2025cs.CY cs.AI cs.HCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent studies indicate that robotic coaches can play a crucial role in promoting wellbeing. However, the real-world deployment of wellbeing robots raises numerous ethical and socio-technical questions and concerns. To explore these questions, we undertake a community-centered investigation to examine three different communities' perspectives on using robotic wellbeing coaches in real-world environments. We frame our work as an anticipatory ethical investigation, which we undertake to better inform the development of robotic technologies with communities' opinions, with the ultimate goal of aligning robot development with public interest. We conducted workshops with three communities who are under-represented in robotics development: 1) members of the public at a science festival, 2) women computer scientists at a conference, and 3) humanities researchers interested in history and philosophy of science. In the workshops, we collected qualitative data using the Social Robot Co-Design Canvas on Ethics. We analysed the collected qualitative data with Thematic Analysis, informed by notes taken during workshops. Through our analysis, we identify four themes regarding key ethical and socio-technical questions about the real-world use of wellbeing robots. We group participants' insights and discussions around these broad thematic questions, discuss them in light of state-of-the-art literature, and highlight areas for future investigation. Finally, we provide the four questions as a broad framework that roboticists can and should use during robotic development and deployment, in order to reflect on the ethics and socio-technical dimensions of their robotic applications, and to engage in dialogue with communities of robot users. The four questions are: 1) Is the robot safe and how can we know that?, 2) Who is the robot built for and with?, 3) Who owns the robot and the data?, and 4) Why a robot?.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 160 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2025.

Builds on

37 of 160 references.

References · 37

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  2. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  3. 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
  4. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
  5. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
  6. 2019Explainable Machine Learning in Deploymentcited by 211
  7. 2022Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AIcited by 138
  8. 2022Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reductioncited by 138
  9. 2020Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertaintycited by 129
  10. 2022Cultural Incongruencies in Artificial Intelligencecited by 21
  11. 2023Uncertainty-based Fairness Measurescited by 15
  12. 2019ABOUT ML: Annotation and Benchmarking on Understanding and Transparency of Machine Learning Lifecyclescited by 13
25 more
  1. 2020Taking Principles Seriously: A Hybrid Approach to Value Alignmentcited by 13
  2. 2021Black Feminist Musings on Algorithmic Oppressioncited by 12
  3. 2025U-Fair: Uncertainty-based Multimodal Multitask Learning for Fairer Depression Detectioncited by 12
  4. 2024Small but Fair! Fairness for Multimodal Human-Human and Robot-Human Mental Wellbeing Coachingcited by 11
  5. 2024Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approachescited by 10
  6. 2022Crowdsourcing Impacts: Exploring the Utility of Crowds for Anticipating Societal Impacts of Algorithmic Decision Makingcited by 9
  7. 2024Multimodal Gender Fairness in Depression Prediction: Insights on Data from the USA & Chinacited by 7
  8. 2025Machine Learning Fairness for Depression Detection using EEG Datacited by 7
  9. 2024Underneath the Numbers: Quantitative and Qualitative Gender Fairness in LLMs for Depression Predictioncited by 6
  10. 2020A Robotic Positive Psychology Coach to Improve College Students' Wellbeingcited by 5
  11. 2024Appropriateness of LLM-equipped Robotic Well-being Coach Language in the Workplace: A Qualitative Evaluationcited by 5
  12. 2023Opportunities in Mental Health Support for Informal Dementia Caregivers Suffering from Verbal Agitationcited by 4
  13. 2018Does Removing Stereotype Priming Remove Bias? A Pilot Human-Robot Interaction Studycited by 3
  14. 2018Robots Racialized in the Likeness of Marginalized Social Identities are Subject to Greater Dehumanization than those racialized as Whitecited by 3
  15. 2022Robots as Mental Well-being Coaches: Design and Ethical Recommendationscited by 3
  16. 2024"Oh, Sorry, I Think I Interrupted You'': Designing Repair Strategies for Robotic Longitudinal Well-being Coachingcited by 3
  17. 2019An extended framework for characterizing social robotscited by 2
  18. 2020Creating a Robot Coach for Mindfulness and Wellbeing: A Longitudinal Studycited by 2
  19. 2022Participant Perceptions of a Robotic Coach Conducting Positive Psychology Exercises: A Qualitative Analysiscited by 2
  20. 2023Affective Robotics For Wellbeing: A Scoping Reviewcited by 2
  21. 2021Improving HRI through robot architecture transparencycited by 1
  22. 2023On the relationship between Benchmarking, Standards and Certification in Robotics and AIcited by 1
  23. 2024Technology-assisted Journal Writing for Improving Student Mental Wellbeing: Humanoid Robot vs. Voice Assistantcited by 1
  24. 2024Designing Robot Identity: The Role of Voice, Clothing, and Task on Robot Gender Perceptioncited by 1
  25. 2025Exercise Specialists Evaluation of Robot-led Physical Therapy for People with Parkinsons Diseasecited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.