Formal verification for robo-advisors: Irrelevant for subjective end-user trust, yet decisive for investment behavior?

Alina Tausch; Magdalena Wischnewski; Mustafa Yalciner; Daniel Neider

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2509.08540

Formal verification for robo-advisors: Irrelevant for subjective end-user trust, yet decisive for investment behavior?

Alina Tausch·Magdalena Wischnewski·Mustafa Yalciner·Daniel Neider

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This online-vignette study investigates the impact of certification and verification as measures for quality assurance of AI on trust and use of a robo-advisor. Confronting 520 participants with an imaginary situation where they were using an online banking service to invest their inherited money, we formed 4 experimental groups. EG1 achieved no further information of their robo-advisor, while EG2 was informed that their robo-advisor was certified by a reliable agency for unbiased processes, and EG3 was presented with a formally verified robo-advisor that was proven to consider their investment preferences. A control group was presented a remote certified human financial advisor. All groups had to decide on how much of their 10,000 euros they would give to their advisor to autonomously invest for them and report on trust and perceived dependability. A second manipulation happened afterwards, confronting participants with either a successful or failed investment. Overall, our results show that the level of quality assurance of the advisor had surprisingly near to no effect of any of our outcome variables, except for people's perception of their own mental model of the advisor. Descriptively, differences between investments show that seem to favor a verified advisor with a median investment of 65,000 euros (vs. 50,000). Success or failure information, though influences only partially by advisor quality, has been perceived as a more important clue for advisor trustworthiness, leading to substantially different trust and dependability ratings. The study shows the importance of thoroughly investigating not only trust, but also trusting behavior with objective measures. It also underlines the need for future research on formal verification, that might be the gold standard in proving AI mathematically, but seems not to take full effect as a cue for trustworthiness for end-users.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Alina Tausch, Magdalena Wischnewski, Mustafa Yalciner, Daniel Neider. 2025-09-10. Formal verification for robo-advisors: Irrelevant for subjective end-user trust, yet decisive for investment behavior?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08540

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC↗