Human-AI Teaming Through the Lens of Calibration

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10906v1
• Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 14:14:54 GMT
• Title: Human-AI Teaming Through the Lens of Calibration
• Abstract summary: We study models for human-AI teaming through the lens of statistical calibration.<n>We assume the team consists of an AI model and human -- both of which are calibrated with respect to some partitioning of the feature space.
• Score: 29.992478443263547
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We study models for human-AI teaming through the lens of statistical calibration. We assume the team consists of an AI model and human -- both of which are calibrated with respect to some partitioning of the feature space -- and expose how the calibration assumptions propagate into the teaming framework. In particular, we consider frameworks that either (i) combine human and model predictions or (ii) delegate prediction responsibility to either a human or model. We show via theoretical and empirical results that existing methods for combination do not preserve the human's degree of calibration. Methods for delegation (by the very act of delegation) preserve calibration of the downstream predictors but shift the burden onto the rejector meta-model that decides who predicts. The rejector must be calibrated finely enough to locate where each member is superior, a demand that grows with the human's expertise and becomes unattainable when the human relies on information the system cannot observe.

Related papers

• Aggregate-then-Calibrate for Human-centered Assessment with Theoretical Guarantees [15.471672928989138]
  Methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales.<n>We propose Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework that combines these complementary sources.<n>AtC consistently improves accuracy and robustness over human-only or model-only assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T16:30:30Z)
• Robust Human-AI Complementarity under Uncertainty [16.894647212197782]
  We study how asymmetric information about the quality of information available to a human decision maker vs. an AI impacts the ability of a decision maker to extract complementary value from AI predictions.<n>We show that a key factor is the error correlation structure between human and AI predictions.<n>In particular, when the AI's prediction errors are textitnegatively correlated with those of the human, the decision maker can construct robust strategies which guarantee improvements in expected utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T17:58:06Z)
• Do Machines Fail Like Humans? A Human-Centred Out-of-Distribution Spectrum for Mapping Error Alignment [1.974820485832244]
  We propose a human-centred framework that redefines the degree of OOD as a spectrum of human perceptual difficulty.<n>We apply this framework to object recognition and reveal unique, regime-dependent model-human alignment rankings and profiles across deep learning architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T04:51:39Z)
• Mind the Uncertainty in Human Disagreement: Evaluating Discrepancies between Model Predictions and Human Responses in VQA [26.968874222330978]
  This study focuses on the Visual Question Answering (VQA) task. We evaluate how well vision-language models correlate with the distribution of human responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T13:44:25Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• Exploring Alignment of Representations with Human Perception [47.53970721813083]
  We show that inputs that are mapped to similar representations by the model should be perceived similarly by humans. Our approach yields a measure of the extent to which a model is aligned with human perception. We find that various properties of a model like its architecture, training paradigm, training loss, and data augmentation play a significant role in learning representations that are aligned with human perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-29T17:26:50Z)
• Combining Human Predictions with Model Probabilities via Confusion Matrices and Calibration [11.75395256889808]
  We develop a set of algorithms that combine the probabilistic output of a model with the class-level output of a human. We show theoretically that the accuracy of our combination model is driven not only by the individual human and model accuracies, but also by the model's confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-29T17:43:15Z)
• Test-time Collective Prediction [73.74982509510961]
  Multiple parties in machine learning want to jointly make predictions on future test points. Agents wish to benefit from the collective expertise of the full set of agents, but may not be willing to release their data or model parameters. We explore a decentralized mechanism to make collective predictions at test time, leveraging each agent's pre-trained model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-22T18:29:58Z)
• When Does Uncertainty Matter?: Understanding the Impact of Predictive Uncertainty in ML Assisted Decision Making [68.19284302320146]
  We carry out user studies to assess how people with differing levels of expertise respond to different types of predictive uncertainty. We found that showing posterior predictive distributions led to smaller disagreements with the ML model's predictions. This suggests that posterior predictive distributions can potentially serve as useful decision aids which should be used with caution and take into account the type of distribution and the expertise of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-12T02:23:53Z)
• Double Robust Representation Learning for Counterfactual Prediction [68.78210173955001]
  We propose a novel scalable method to learn double-robust representations for counterfactual predictions. We make robust and efficient counterfactual predictions for both individual and average treatment effects. The algorithm shows competitive performance with the state-of-the-art on real world and synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T16:39:26Z)
• An Uncertainty-based Human-in-the-loop System for Industrial Tool Wear Analysis [68.8204255655161]
  We show that uncertainty measures based on Monte-Carlo dropout in the context of a human-in-the-loop system increase the system's transparency and performance. A simulation study demonstrates that the uncertainty-based human-in-the-loop system increases performance for different levels of human involvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T15:47:37Z)

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.