Today, AI is being increasingly used to help human experts make decisions in
high-stakes scenarios. In these scenarios, full automation is often
undesirable, not only due to the significance of the outcome, but also because
human experts can draw on their domain knowledge complementary to the model's
to ensure task success. We refer to these scenarios as AI-assisted decision
making, where the individual strengths of the human and the AI come together to
optimize the joint decision outcome. A key to their success is to appropriately
\textit{calibrate} human trust in the AI on a case-by-case basis; knowing when
to trust or distrust the AI allows the human expert to appropriately apply
their knowledge, improving decision outcomes in cases where the model is likely
to perform poorly. This research conducts a case study of AI-assisted decision
making in which humans and AI have comparable performance alone, and explores
whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate
trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. Specifically, we
study the effect of showing confidence score and local explanation for a
particular prediction. Through two human experiments, 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, which may also
depend on whether the human can bring in enough unique knowledge to complement
the AI's errors. We also highlight the problems in using local explanation for
AI-assisted decision making scenarios and invite the research community to
explore new approaches to explainability for calibrating human trust in AI.

研究了基于不同特征的人工智能辅助决策场景下，人类对人工智能的信任度与信任度校正，以及人类与人工智能协同工作的影响因素。结果表明，人类信任度的校正能够通过特定的置信度得到有效提高，尽管人类的专业独特知识对于决策的最终结果有良好的辅助作用，但同时也存在着使用本地解释会出现的问题。因此，我们需要探索新的可信度解释方法来更好地衡量和校正人类对人工智能的信任度。