{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,2]],"date-time":"2026-07-02T10:49:27Z","timestamp":1782989367178,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"IOS Press","isbn-type":[{"value":"9781643686707","type":"electronic"}],"license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,2]],"date-time":"2026-07-02T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1782950400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,2]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>AI-generated advice is increasingly used in hybrid human-AI settings for both personal and professional decision-making. In high-stakes domains such as agriculture, incorrect guidance can cause significant economic and environmental harm. With the growing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) for advisory tasks, it remains unclear whether typical quantitative evaluations accurately reflect trustworthiness. In this work, we propose a method to identify and analyze indicators of trustworthy AI advice, by investigating the relationship between system- and user-based metrics with human-perceived trustworthiness. We apply this method to an agricultural decision-support setting, in which advice is generated through knowledge-driven Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). To support this analysis, we introduce AgriAdviceQA, a benchmark consisting of 100 question-answer-context entries of information and advice questions, derived from 3,000+ agricultural best-practice documents and their metadata. We compare retrieval and generation performance of three different AI system designs (LLM-only, RAG, and metadata-augmented RAG) against AgriAdviceQA\u2019s ground truth. A user study is performed with domain experts, who rate Perceived Fluency, Relevance, Simplicity, and Trustworthiness. Results indicate significant correlations between system and user metrics, supported by qualitative insights. These findings demonstrate that our method can meaningfully identify trust indicators, which provides guidance towards evaluating and designing more reliable advice systems.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3233\/faia260518","type":"book-chapter","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,2]],"date-time":"2026-07-02T09:57:23Z","timestamp":1782986243000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Harvesting Trust Indicators: A Method for Evaluating Trustworthiness of RAG-Driven Advice"],"prefix":"10.3233","author":[{"given":"Daan L.","family":"di Scala","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"TNO, Soesterberg, The Netherlands"},{"name":"Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Maaike H.T.","family":"de Boer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"TNO, Soesterberg, The Netherlands"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"7437","container-title":["Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications","HHAI 2026"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/ebooks.iospress.nl\/pdf\/doi\/10.3233\/FAIA260518","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,2]],"date-time":"2026-07-02T09:57:23Z","timestamp":1782986243000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/ebooks.iospress.nl\/doi\/10.3233\/FAIA260518"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,2]]},"ISBN":["9781643686707"],"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/faia260518","relation":{},"ISSN":["0922-6389","1879-8314"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0922-6389","type":"print"},{"value":"1879-8314","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,2]]}}}