Dynamic Trust Calibration Using Contextual Bandits

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.23497v1
• Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2025 21:06:17 GMT
• Title: Dynamic Trust Calibration Using Contextual Bandits
• Authors: Bruno M. Henrique, Eugene Santos Jr,
• Abstract summary: Excessive trust can lead users to accept AI-generated outputs without question.<n>Insufficient trust may result in disregarding valuable insights from AI systems.<n>There is currently no definitive and objective method for measuring trust calibration between humans and AI.
• Score: 1.8563342761346613
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Trust calibration between humans and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is crucial for optimal decision-making in collaborative settings. Excessive trust can lead users to accept AI-generated outputs without question, overlooking critical flaws, while insufficient trust may result in disregarding valuable insights from AI systems, hindering performance. Despite its importance, there is currently no definitive and objective method for measuring trust calibration between humans and AI. Current approaches lack standardization and consistent metrics that can be broadly applied across various contexts, and they don't distinguish between the formation of opinions and subsequent human decisions. In this work, we propose a novel and objective method for dynamic trust calibration, introducing a standardized trust calibration measure and an indicator. By utilizing Contextual Bandits-an adaptive algorithm that incorporates context into decision-making-our indicator dynamically assesses when to trust AI contributions based on learned contextual information. We evaluate this indicator across three diverse datasets, demonstrating that effective trust calibration results in significant improvements in decision-making performance, as evidenced by 10 to 38% increase in reward metrics. These findings not only enhance theoretical understanding but also provide practical guidance for developing more trustworthy AI systems supporting decisions in critical domains, for example, disease diagnoses and criminal justice.

Related papers

• Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations [49.84786015324238]
  Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models (LLMs) are, and can impact user trust and decision-making.<n>We present a comprehensive evaluation framework for CE that measures their confidence quality on three new aspects.<n>These include robustness of confidence against prompt perturbations, stability across semantic equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T23:16:50Z)
• The Confidence Paradox: Can LLM Know When It's Wrong [5.545086863155316]
  We introduce HonestVQA, a self-supervised honesty calibration framework for ethically aligned DocVQA.<n>Our model-agnostic method quantifies uncertainty to identify knowledge gaps, aligns model confidence with actual correctness using weighted loss functions, and enforces ethical response behavior via contrastive learning.<n> Empirically, HonestVQA improves DocVQA accuracy by up to 4.3% and F1 by 4.3% across SpDocVQA, InfographicsVQA, and SROIE datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T02:06:54Z)
• Uncertainty Estimation by Human Perception versus Neural Models [7.273936646577467]
  Modern neural networks (NNs) often achieve high predictive accuracy but are poorly calibrated.<n>We investigate how human uncertainty compares to uncertainty estimated by NNs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T20:00:20Z)
• Is Trust Correlated With Explainability in AI? A Meta-Analysis [0.0]
  We conduct a comprehensive examination of the existing literature to explore the relationship between AI explainability and trust.<n>Our analysis, incorporating data from 90 studies, reveals a statistically significant but moderate positive correlation between the explainability of AI systems and the trust they engender.<n>This research highlights its broader socio-technical implications, particularly in promoting accountability and fostering user trust in critical domains such as healthcare and justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T23:30:55Z)
• On the Trustworthiness of Generative Foundation Models: Guideline, Assessment, and Perspective [334.48358909967845]
  Generative Foundation Models (GenFMs) have emerged as transformative tools.<n>Their widespread adoption raises critical concerns regarding trustworthiness across dimensions.<n>This paper presents a comprehensive framework to address these challenges through three key contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T06:20:36Z)
• Trustworthiness in Stochastic Systems: Towards Opening the Black Box [1.7355698649527407]
  behavior by an AI system threatens to undermine alignment and potential trust.<n>We take a philosophical perspective to the tension and potential conflict between foundationality and trustworthiness.<n>We propose latent value modeling for both AI systems and users to better assess alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T19:43:09Z)
• Understanding the Effects of Miscalibrated AI Confidence on User Trust, Reliance, and Decision Efficacy [38.39755953750018]
  Miscalibrated AI confidence impairs users' appropriate reliance and reduces AI-assisted decision-making efficacy.<n>We find that communicating AI confidence calibration levels helps users to detect AI miscalibration.<n>However, since such communication decreases users' trust in uncalibrated AI, leading to high under-reliance, it does not improve the decision efficacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T13:16:30Z)
• A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertainty [52.44939679369428]
  Modern NLP systems are often uncalibrated, resulting in confidently incorrect predictions that undermine user trust. We study the evolution of user trust in response to trust-eroding events using a betting game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T14:41:46Z)
• A Systematic Literature Review of User Trust in AI-Enabled Systems: An HCI Perspective [0.0]
  User trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) enabled systems has been increasingly recognized and proven as a key element to fostering adoption. This review aims to provide an overview of the user trust definitions, influencing factors, and measurement methods from 23 empirical studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-18T07:58:09Z)
• Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective [56.80107647520364]
  We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH. We highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. We propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T00:14:33Z)
• Trustworthy AI [75.99046162669997]
  Brittleness to minor adversarial changes in the input data, ability to explain the decisions, address the bias in their training data, are some of the most prominent limitations. We propose the tutorial on Trustworthy AI to address six critical issues in enhancing user and public trust in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T20:04:18Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.