Robust Human-AI Complementarity under Uncertainty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06656v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 17:58:06 GMT
• Title: Robust Human-AI Complementarity under Uncertainty
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 16.894647212197782
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning models are often intended to augment rather than replace human decision makers, by providing information that is complementary to human judgement. Yet, in practice, human decision makers routinely fail to realize such complementary gains, even when models provide useful signal. In this work, 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. We show that a key factor is the error correlation structure between human and AI predictions. In particular, when the AI's prediction errors are \textit{negatively correlated} with those of the human, the decision maker can construct robust strategies which guarantee improvements in expected utility. We empirically investigate whether these conditions for complementarity arise in practice, using real-world forecasting benchmarks.

Related papers

• Epistemology gives a Future to Complementarity in Human-AI Interactions [42.371764229953165]
  complementarity is the claim that a human supported by an AI system can outperform either alone in a decision-making process.<n>We argue that historical instances of complementarity function as evidence that a given human-AI interaction is a reliable process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T21:04:28Z)
• Human-AI Collaborative Uncertainty Quantification [26.38833436936642]
  We introduce Human AI Collaborative Uncertainty Quantification, a framework that formalizes how an AI model can refine a human expert's proposed prediction set.<n>We show that the optimal collaborative prediction set follows an intuitive two threshold structure over a single score function, extending a classical result in conformal prediction.<n>Experiments across image classification, regression, and text based medical decision making show that collaborative prediction sets consistently outperform either agent alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T16:11:23Z)
• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance [0.06554326244334868]
  We investigate how AI agents based on large language models assess and integrate human input.<n>We find that the AI system systematically discounts human advice, penalizing human errors more severely than algorithmic errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T02:05:27Z)
• On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines [77.55118048492021]
  We argue that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities.<n>We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T20:21:36Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making [47.33241893184721]
  In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole.<n>We propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making.<n>Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T14:34:06Z)
• A Decision Theoretic Framework for Measuring AI Reliance [20.669176502049066]
  Humans frequently make decisions with the aid of artificially intelligent (AI) systems.<n>Researchers have identified ensuring that a human has appropriate reliance on an AI as a critical component of achieving complementary performance.<n>We propose a formal definition of reliance, based on statistical decision theory, which separates the concepts of reliance as the probability the decision-maker follows the AI's recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-27T09:13:09Z)
• AI Reliance and Decision Quality: Fundamentals, Interdependence, and the Effects of Interventions [6.356355538824237]
  We argue that reliance and decision quality are often inappropriately conflated in the current literature on AI-assisted decision-making.<n>Our research highlights the importance of distinguishing between reliance behavior and decision quality in AI-assisted decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-18T08:08:05Z)
• 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)
• A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores [85.12096045419686]
  We study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. We show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-19T07:27:32Z)
• 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.