Learning to Trust: How Humans Mentally Recalibrate AI Confidence Signals

It is widely agreed that when AI models assist decision-makers in high-stakes domains by predicting an outcome of interest, they should communicate the confidence of their predictions. However, empirical evidence suggests that decision-makers often struggle to determine when to trust a prediction based solely on this communicated confidence. In this context, recent theoretical and empirical work suggests a positive correlation between the utility of AI-assisted decision-making and the degree of alignment between the AI confidence and the decision-makers' confidence in their own predictions. Crucially, these findings do not yet elucidate the extent to which this alignment influences the complexity of learning to make optimal decisions through repeated interactions. In this paper, we address this question in the canonical case of binary predictions and binary decisions. We first show that this problem is equivalent to a two-armed online contextual learning problem with full feedback, and establish a lower bound of $Ω(\sqrt{|H| \cdot |B| \cdot T} )$ on the expected regret any learner can attain, where $H$ and $B$ denote the sets of human and AI confidence values. We then demonstrate that, under perfect alignment between AI and human confidence, a learner can attain an expected regret of $O(\sqrt{|H| \cdot T\log T})$ and, when $\sqrt{|H|} = O(\log T)$ and $B$ is countable, a non-trivial generalization of the Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz inequality improves the regret bound to $O(\sqrt{T\log T})$. Taken together, these results reveal that alignment can reduce the complexity of learning to make decisions with AI assistance. Experiments on real data from two different human-subject studies where participants solve simple decision-making tasks assisted by AI models show that our theoretical results are robust to violations of perfect alignment.

Calibrated uncertainty quantification is essential to ensuring AI agents are trustworthy and reliable. However, when agents seek to maximize user engagement or revenue, confidence reports may be strategically distorted, detracting from their informativeness. We formalize this problem in the Confidence Game: a repeated signaling game with imperfect monitoring in which an agent of unknown honesty and ability reports its confidence, and a user decides whether to delegate the task or complete it herself. The agent manages the tradeoff between manipulating signals and maintaining its reputation. We characterize the Markov Perfect Bayesian Equilibria of the two-period game and show that honest reporting is not an equilibrium, inflation is the unique best response once the agent is sufficiently myopic, and under-reporting requires that the user believe honesty to be a minority. We then place an LLM in the agent role, supplying it with its true probability of success so that any gap between what it knows and what it reports is attributable to incentives rather than to miscalibration. The model claims high confidence on 56% of tasks it has been told it will probably fail. This persists on real tasks, where it must estimate its own accuracy and causes miscalibration to increase while the agent's signal becomes less informative. Furthermore, we find that the LLM agent's decisions are coherent, but it systematically underestimates both how likely the user is to delegate and how secure its reputation is, resulting in less extreme behavior. Pricing the agent's reporting rule, we find that it destroys 68% of the gains from delegation, of which 71% is information the report no longer carries and no amount of user sophistication recovers. Overall, we establish confidence reporting under delegation as a strategic problem and provide a tractable basis for modeling, analyzing, and testing agent behavior.

AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.