Trust in AI

Ask about this topic

Overview

Trust in AI research studies how people judge AI systems and decide whether to accept, check, or delegate decisions to them, as well as how agents and institutions can verify one another. Researchers use controlled user studies, surveys, behavioral measures of reliance, and benchmarks, alongside methods such as uncertainty calibration, evidence-linked explanations, provenance records, and reputation or access-control protocols. Work spans settings including healthcare, education, information seeking, human-robot teams, and autonomous agents, where both system performance and interaction design shape trust. A central tension is that explanations, confidence signals, and warnings can change perceived trust without improving users’ ability to spot errors or rely appropriately, so evaluation must separate trust from accuracy, verification, and outcomes.

Latest papers

CardsList

175 papers21 papers in the last four weeks, down 12% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

May 1, 2026

"I Don't Know" -- Towards Appropriate Trust with Certainty-Aware Retrieval Augmented Generation

Achieving the right amount of trust in AI systems is important, but challenging. The problem is exacerbated with the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) as they provide human-level communication capabilities, but potentially hallucinate in the content that they generate. Moreover, they express over-confidence in their answers, making it difficult for users to judge their truthfulness. An important human value that users seek is benevolence, which can be met by LLM's self-reflection leading to reliable and honest answers. Accordingly, this paper proposes conveying appropriate levels of self-reflected certainty to build appropriate trust. Our contributions are twofold: 1) We develop CERTA (Certainty Enhanced RAG for Trustworthy Answers), a specialized Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) system that incorporates the relevance between question, context, and answer to reflect its uncertainty in answering questions; 2) We create the Certainty Benchmark with 90 question-context pairs of non-objective questions, divided over four categories (factuality, preference, sycophancy, morality) and three types of contexts (relevant, incomplete, irrelevant). We run experiments with a baseline RAG system and three CERTA settings using two LLMs. Our evaluations indicate that CERTA helps identify answers that are uncertain, decreases the cases of over-agreeing, and provides cautious behavior when prompted for moral judgments.

Daan Di Scala, Maaike de Boer, Pınar Yolum

TNO Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Department Data Science · Utrecht University, Department of Information and Computing Sciences

Retrieval-Augmented GenerationLLM ReliabilityLLM Uncertainty EstimationRAG EvaluationTrust in AILLM Honesty+1
AskPDF
Apr 30, 2026

Consumer Attitudes Towards AI in Digital Health: A Mixed-Methods Survey in Australia

AI applications are increasingly being introduced into digital health. While technical performance has advanced rapidly, successful deployment mainly depends on consumer attitudes, especially to patient-facing applications. However, most existing research examines consumer attitudes towards healthcare AI at an abstract level rather than in response to concrete artefacts. We report a mixed-methods survey study in Australia (N=275) examining consumer readiness, acceptance, trust, and risk perceptions of healthcare AI, combined with a scenario-based evaluation of an AI-generated versus clinician-written consultation summary. Participants expressed moderate optimism and strong perceived usefulness and ease of use, but also substantial concerns about accuracy, safety, and data use. In the scenario task, the AI-generated summary was strongly preferred for quality, empathy, and overall usefulness, yet identification of the AI summary was near chance. Findings show that consumers judge AI through concrete communication quality and visible human governance, underscoring the need for clinically supervised deployment frameworks beyond technical performance alone.

Wei Zhou, Rashina Hoda, Joycelyn Ling

1*Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Wellington Rd, Clayton, 3800, VIC, Australia. · 2Digital Health CRC, George Street, Sydney, 2000, NSW, Australia.

HealthcareHuman-Centered AITrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 29, 2026

From Black-Box Confidence to Measurable Trust in Clinical AI: A Framework for Evidence, Supervision, and Staged Autonomy

Trust in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be reduced to model accuracy, fluency of generation, or overall positive user impression. In medicine, trust must be engineered as a measurable system property grounded in evidence, supervision, and operational boundaries of AI autonomy. This article proposes a practical framework for trustworthy clinical AI built around three principles: evidence, supervision, and staged autonomy. Rather than replacing deterministic clinical logic wholesale with end-to-end black-box models, the proposed approach combines a deterministic core, a patient-specific AI assistant for contextual validation, a multi-tier model escalation mechanism, and a human supervision layer for verification, escalation, and risk control. We demonstrate that trust also depends on selective verification of clinically critical findings, bounded clinical context, disciplined prompt architecture, and careful evaluation on realistic cases. Classifier-driven modular prompting is examined as an incremental path to scaling clinical depth without sacrificing prompt performance and without waiting for complete rule-based coverage. To operationalize trust, a set of trust metrics is proposed, built on metrological principles -- measurement uncertainty, calibration, traceability -- enabling quantitative rather than subjective assessment of each architectural layer. In this perspective, trustworthy clinical AI emerges not as a property of an individual model, but as an architectural outcome of a system into which evidence trails, human oversight, tiered escalation, and graduated action rights are embedded from the outset.

Serhii Zabolotnii, Viktoriia Holinko, Olha Antonenko

Cherkasy State Business College, Cherkasy, Ukraine · healthPrecision, New York, NY, USA

Clinical Decision SupportTrust in AIHuman Oversight of AIResponsible AI
AskPDF
Apr 24, 2026

How AI Writing Assistance Distorts Perceptions of AI Users and Their Opinions

Hundreds of millions of people use AI for writing assistance. We asked how AI distorts perceptions of AI users and their opinions. Writers (N=2,939) wrote political opinion paragraphs with and without AI assistance. Separate readers (N=11,091) blindly evaluated these paragraphs and made inferences about the writers. With AI, writers seemed more opinionated, competent, positive, and demographically privileged. Writers objected to many of these distortions yet preferred AI-assisted text even when made aware of them. Reward models trained on our data mitigated objectionable distortions but reduced user acceptance. Additional readers (N=8,798) trusted AI-assisted writers more and were more persuaded by AI writing when AI was more distortive. Overall, distortions from AI writing assistance are pervasive, persistent under human oversight, and likely to have consequential effects on human behaviours and attitudes.

Paul Röttger, Kobi Hackenburg, Hannah Rose Kirk +1

University of Oxford · UK AI Security Institute

Trust in AIDemographic Bias in Language ModelsHuman-AI Co-Creation
AskPDF
Apr 22, 2026

Aligning Human-AI-Interaction Trust for Mental Health Support: Survey and Position for Multi-Stakeholders

Building trustworthy AI systems for mental health support is a shared priority across stakeholders from multiple disciplines. However, "trustworthy" remains loosely defined and inconsistently operationalized. AI research often focuses on technical criteria (e.g., robustness, explainability, and safety), while therapeutic practitioners emphasize therapeutic fidelity (e.g., appropriateness, empathy, and long-term user outcomes). To bridge the fragmented landscape, we propose a three-layer trust framework, covering human-oriented, AI-oriented, and interaction-oriented trust, integrating the viewpoints of key stakeholders (e.g., practitioners, researchers, regulators). Using this framework, we systematically review existing AI-driven research in mental health domain and examine evaluation practices for ``trustworthy'' ranging from automatic metrics to clinically validated approaches. We highlight critical gaps between what NLP currently measures and what real-world mental health contexts require, and outline a research agenda for building socio-technically aligned and genuinely trustworthy AI for mental health support.

Xin Sun, Yue Su, Yifan Mo +9

National Institute of Informatics (NII), Japan · Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Mental HealthHuman-Centered AITrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 21, 2026

When Can We Trust Deep Neural Networks? Towards Reliable Industrial Deployment with an Interpretability Guide

The deployment of AI systems in safety-critical domains, such as industrial defect inspection, autonomous driving, and medical diagnosis, is severely hampered by their lack of reliability. A single undetected erroneous prediction can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Unfortunately, there is often no alternative but to place trust in the outputs of a trained AI system, which operates without an internal safeguard to flag unreliable predictions, even in cases of high accuracy. We propose a post-hoc explanation-based indicator to detect false negatives in binary defect detection networks. To our knowledge, this is the first method to proactively identify potentially erroneous network outputs. Our core idea leverages the difference between class-specific discriminative heatmaps and class-agnostic ones. We compute the difference in their intersection over union (IoU) as a reliability score. An adversarial enhancement method is further introduced to amplify this disparity. Evaluations on two industrial defect detection benchmarks show our method effectively identifies false negatives. With adversarial enhancement, it achieves 100% recall, albeit with a trade-off for true negatives. Our work thus advocates for a new and trustworthy deployment paradigm: data-model-explanation-output, moving beyond conventional end-to-end systems to provide critical support for reliable AI in real-world applications.

Hang-Cheng Dong, Yuhao Jiang, Yibo Jiao +5

Explainable Artificial IntelligenceIndustrial Anomaly DetectionTrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 19, 2026

Understanding U.S. Users' Security and Privacy Transparency Needs for Consumer-Facing Generative AI

Users increasingly rely on consumer-facing generative AI (GenAI) for tasks ranging from everyday needs to sensitive use cases. Yet, it remains unclear whether and how existing security and privacy (S&P) communications in GenAI tools shape users' adoption decisions and experiences. Understanding how users seek, interpret, and evaluate S&P information is critical for designing usable transparency that users can trust and act on. We conducted semi-structured interviews and design sessions with 21 U.S. GenAI users. Our findings suggest that available S&P information rarely drove initial adoption in practice, as participants often perceived it as incomplete, ineffective, or not credible. Instead, they relied on rough proxies (e.g., popularity) to infer S&P practices. After adoption, S&P uncertainty constrained participants' willingness to use GenAI tools, especially for high-stakes purposes, and, in some cases, contributed to discontinued use. Participants therefore called for transparency that supports decisions and actions through trustworthy information (e.g., independent evaluations) and usable interfaces (e.g., on-demand disclosure). We categorize participants' desired design practices into five dimensions to facilitate systematic future investigation into best practices. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, designers, and policymakers to improve S&P transparency in consumer-facing GenAI.

Jiaxun Cao, Yu Dong, Chunxi Zhan +3

Duke University · Duke Kunshan University · Google

Human-Centered AITrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 18, 2026

LLMs can persuade only psychologically susceptible humans on societal issues, via trust in AI and emotional appeals, amid logical fallacies

Scarce longitudinal evidence examines LLMs' persuasiveness and humanness along time-evolving psychological frameworks. We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness about polarizing societal topics. In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety. This produced 3,080 conversations over 60,000 turns. After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation. Feedback time series showed longitudinal inertia in convictions, indicating some human anchoring to initial opinions even after repeated exposure to AI-generated arguments. Interestingly, NLP analyses revealed that both humans and LLMs relied on fallacious reasoning in 1 conversational quip every 6, countering the ``LLMs as superior systems" stereotype behind LLMs' cognitive surrender. LLMs' perceived humanness was most learnable from sociodemographic, psychological and engagement features (R2=0.44R^2=0.44), followed by opinion change (R2=0.34R^2=0.34), conviction (R2=0.26R^2=0.26) and personal endowment (R2=0.24R^2=0.24). Crucially, explainable AI (XAI) indicated: (i) the presence of individuals more susceptible to LLM-based opinion changes; (ii) psychological susceptibility to LLM-convincing consisted of having more trust in LLMs, being more agreeable and extraverted and with a higher need for cognition. A multiverse approach with mixed-effects models confirmed XAI results, alongside strong individual differences. Talk2AI provides a grounded framework and evidence for detecting how GenAI can influence human opinions via multiple psycho-social pathways in AI-human digital platforms.

Alexis Carrillo, Salvatore Citraro, Ali Aghazhadeh Ardebili +5

CogNosco Lab, Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy · Institute of Information Science and Technologies “Alessandro Faedo", National Research Council, Italy · Thomas Lord Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA +2

Opinion DynamicsTrust in AIHuman-AI Decision Making
AskPDF
Apr 14, 2026

Evidence of a Cognitive Shift in AI Education: How Students Are Rethinking Human Intelligence?

Perceptions of intelligence shape how learners evaluate and rely on artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Despite rapid advances in AI capabilities, the impact of sustained exposure to these tools on students' valuation of human intelligence (HI) relative to AI remains underexplored. This paper presents a longitudinal analysis of classroom poll responses collected between 2020 and 2026 in AI-focused undergraduate and MSc courses in computer science. Data from 471 students across technical courses (such as Machine Learning and Deep Graph Learning) and design-oriented courses (such as Design Thinking for AI) reveal four recurring phases: hype, distrust, trust, and dependency. While early responses in 2020 slightly favored AI, a consistent shift toward HI emerged from 2024 onward across all MSc cohorts. By 2026, preference for HI reached 65 percent in a technical course (a 12 percentage-point increase from 2025) and 90 percent in a design-oriented course (a 36 percentage-point increase). These findings suggest a gradual reappraisal of human intelligence as AI becomes a routine tool, with implications for learner autonomy and epistemic agency. We conclude by reflecting on this cognitive shift from favoring artificial intelligence toward prioritizing human intelligence.

Islem Rekik

BASIRA Lab, Imperial-X (I-X) and Department of Computing Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

AI in EducationComputer Science EducationTrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 9, 2026

AITH: A Post-Quantum Continuous Delegation Protocol for Human-AI Trust Establishment

The rapid deployment of AI agents acting autonomously on behalf of human principals has outpaced the development of cryptographic protocols for establishing, bounding, and revoking human-AI trust relationships. Existing frameworks (TLS, OAuth 2.0, Macaroons) assume deterministic software and cannot address probabilistic AI agents operating continuously within variable trust boundaries. We present AITH (AI Trust Handshake), a post-quantum continuous delegation protocol. AITH introduces: (1) a Continuous Delegation Certificate signed once with ML-DSA-87 (FIPS 204, NIST Level 5), replacing per-operation signing with sub-microsecond boundary checks at 4.7M ops/sec; (2) a six-check Boundary Engine enforcing hard constraints, rate limits, and escalation triggers with zero cryptographic overhead on the critical path; (3) a push-based Revocation Protocol propagating invalidation within one second. A three-tier SHA-256 Responsibility Chain provides tamper-evident audit logging. All five security theorems are machine-verified via Tamarin Prover under the Dolev-Yao model. We validate AITH through five rounds of multi-model adversarial auditing, resolving 12 vulnerabilities across four severity layers. Simulation of 100,000 operations shows 79.5% autonomous execution, 6.1% human escalation, and 14.4% blocked.

Zhaoliang Chen

Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China

AI Agent SecurityCybersecurityTrust in AIRuntime Enforcement for AI Agents
AskPDF
Apr 8, 2026

Trust the AI, Doubt Yourself: The Effect of Urgency on Self-Confidence in Human-AI Interaction

Studies show that interactions with an AI system fosters trust in human users towards AI. An often overlooked element of such interaction dynamics is the (sense of) urgency when the human user is prompted by an AI agent, e.g., for advice or guidance. In this paper, we show that although the presence of urgency in human-AI interactions does not affect the trust in AI, it may be detrimental to the human user's self-confidence and self-efficacy. In the long run, the loss of confidence may lead to performance loss, suboptimal decisions, human errors, and ultimately, unsustainable AI systems. Our evidence comes from an experiment with 30 human participants. Our results indicate that users may feel more confident in their work when they are eased into the human-AI setup rather than exposed to it without preparation. We elaborate on the implications of this finding for software engineers and decision-makers.

Baran Shajari, Xiaoran Liu, Kyanna Dagenais +1

McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

Human-AI InteractionTrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 7, 2026

Towards Trustworthy Report Generation: A Deep Research Agent with Progressive Confidence Estimation and Calibration

As agent-based systems continue to evolve, deep research agents are capable of automatically generating research-style reports across diverse domains. While these agents promise to streamline information synthesis and knowledge exploration, existing evaluation frameworks-typically based on subjective dimensions-fail to capture a critical aspect of report quality: trustworthiness. In open-ended research scenarios where ground-truth answers are unavailable, current evaluation methods cannot effectively measure the epistemic confidence of generated content, making calibration difficult and leaving users susceptible to misleading or hallucinated information. To address this limitation, we propose a novel deep research agent that incorporates progressive confidence estimation and calibration within the report generation pipeline. Our system leverages a deliberative search model, featuring deep retrieval and multi-hop reasoning to ground outputs in verifiable evidence while assigning confidence scores to individual claims. Combined with a carefully designed workflow, this approach produces trustworthy reports with enhanced transparency. Experimental results and case studies demonstrate that our method substantially improves interpretability and significantly increases user trust.

Yi Yuan, Xuhong Wang, Shanzhe Lei

Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Southeast University

Deep Research AgentsTrust in AIConfidence Estimation in Language ModelsLLM Uncertainty EstimationAgentic RAG
AskPDF
Apr 7, 2026

Reciprocal Trust and Distrust in Artificial Intelligence Systems: The Hard Problem of Regulation

Policy makers, scientists, and the public are increasingly confronted with thorny questions about the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. A key common thread concerns whether AI can be trusted and the factors that can make it more trustworthy in front of stakeholders and users. This is indeed crucial, as the trustworthiness of AI systems is fundamental for both democratic governance and for the development and deployment of AI. This article advances the discussion by arguing that AI systems should also be recognized, as least to some extent, as artifacts capable of exercising a form of agency, thereby enabling them to engage in relationships of trust or distrust with humans. It further examines the implications of these reciprocal trust dynamics for regulators tasked with overseeing AI systems. The article concludes by identifying key tensions and unresolved dilemmas that these dynamics pose for the future of AI regulation and governance.

Martino Maggetti

Institute of Political Studies (IEP), University of Lausanne

Trust in AIAI Governance
AskPDF
Apr 7, 2026

Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-Judge

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-Judge). This work challenges its reliability by showing that trust judgments by LLMs are biased by disclosed source labels. Using a counterfactual design, we find that both humans and LLM judges assign higher trust to information labeled as human-authored than to the same content labeled as AI-generated. Eye-tracking data reveal that humans rely heavily on source labels as heuristic cues for judgments. We analyze LLM internal states during judgment. Across label conditions, models allocate denser attention to the label region than the content region, and this label dominance is stronger under Human labels than AI labels, consistent with the human gaze patterns. Besides, decision uncertainty measured by logits is higher under AI labels than Human labels. These results indicate that the source label is a salient heuristic cue for both humans and LLMs. It raises validity concerns for label-sensitive LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation, and we cautiously raise that aligning models with human preferences may propagate human heuristic reliance into models, motivating debiased evaluation and alignment.

Xin Sun, Di Wu, Sijing Qin +3

National Institute of Informatics (NII), Japan · University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands · Hitotsubashi University, Japan +3

Bias in LLM-as-a-JudgeLLM-as-a-JudgeLanguage Model Bias EvaluationTrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 6, 2026

From Use to Oversight: How Mental Models Influence User Behavior and Output in AI Writing Assistants

AI-based writing assistants are ubiquitous, yet little is known about how users' mental models shape their use. We examine two types of mental models -- functional or related to what the system does, and structural or related to how the system works -- and how they affect control behavior -- how users request, accept, or edit AI suggestions as they write -- and writing outcomes. We primed participants (N=48N = 48) with different system descriptions to induce these mental models before asking them to complete a cover letter writing task using a writing assistant that occasionally offered preconfigured ungrammatical suggestions to test whether the mental models affected participants' critical oversight. We find that while participants in the structural mental model condition demonstrate a better understanding of the system, this can have a backfiring effect: while these participants judged the system as more usable, they also produced letters with more grammatical errors, highlighting a complex relationship between system understanding, trust, and control in contexts that require user oversight of error-prone AI outputs.

Shalaleh Rismani, Su Lin Blodgett, Q. Vera Liao +2

McGill University Montréal, Canada · University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Human Oversight of AIHuman-AI CollaborationTrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 6, 2026

Beyond Adoption Intention How Trust in Augmented Analytics Relates to Perceived Decision Quality Among Non-Technical BI Users

Augmented analytics has transformed how Business Intelligence (BI) systems support decision-making, shifting non-technical managers from manual analysis toward dependence on automated insights. Current BI research often overlooks the cognitive mechanisms and the direct impact of AI-enabled analytics on decision quality. This study employs the theory of cognitive delegation to investigate the association between trust in augmented analytics and perceived decision quality among non-technical BI users. Data were collected from 250 business professionals across various organizational roles in Vietnam between January and March 2025 and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Findings indicate that augmented analytics capabilities are positively associated with perceived ease of use, usefulness, and trust in BI systems. Trust and usefulness are jointly associated with BI adoption intention and perceived decision quality. Notably, trust is positively related to perceived decision quality, as observed within the studied sample of non-specialist users. By framing augmented analytics as cognitive delegation, this study expands BI adoption research to include perceived decision outcomes and contributes to the understanding of human-AI interaction in organizations.

Thuy Pham Thi Phuong, Hieu Vu Le Trung, Ha Nguyen Manh +2

Edulight Education and Communication Joint Stock Company, Hanoi, Vietnam · Truong Thanh Viet Nam Group, Vietnam · Maumee Valley Country Day School, Toledo, USA +1

AI-Assisted Decision MakingTrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 5, 2026

Effects of Generative AI Errors on User Reliance Across Task Difficulty

The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) lie along a jagged frontier, where AI systems surprisingly fail on tasks that humans find easy and succeed on tasks that humans find hard. To investigate user reactions to this phenomenon, we developed an incentive-compatible experimental methodology based on diagram generation tasks, in which we induce errors in generative AI output and test effects on user reliance. We demonstrate the interface in a preregistered 3x2 experiment (N = 577) with error rates of 10%, 30%, or 50% on easier or harder diagram generation tasks. We confirmed that observing more errors reduces use, but we unexpectedly found that easy-task errors did not significantly reduce use more than hard-task errors, suggesting that people are not averse to jaggedness in this experimental setting. We encourage future work that varies task difficulty at the same time as other features of AI errors, such as whether the jagged error patterns are easily learned.

Jacy Reese Anthis, Hannah Cha, Solon Barocas +2

Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA · University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA · Microsoft Research, New York, New York, USA

Trust in AIHuman-AI Decision MakingGenerative AI Evaluation
AskPDF
Apr 5, 2026

Quantifying Trust: Financial Risk Management for Trustworthy AI Agents

Prior work on trustworthy AI emphasizes model-internal properties such as bias mitigation, adversarial robustness, and interpretability. As AI systems evolve into autonomous agents deployed in open environments and increasingly connected to payments or assets, the operational meaning of trust shifts to end-to-end outcomes: whether an agent completes tasks, follows user intent, and avoids failures that cause material or psychological harm. These risks are fundamentally product-level and cannot be eliminated by technical safeguards alone because agent behavior is inherently stochastic. To address this gap between model-level reliability and user-facing assurance, we propose a complementary framework based on risk management. Drawing inspiration from financial underwriting, we introduce the Agentic Risk Standard (ARS), a payment settlement standard for AI-mediated transactions. ARS integrates risk assessment, underwriting, and compensation into a single transaction framework that protects users when interacting with agents. Under ARS, users receive predefined and contractually enforceable compensation in cases of execution failure, misalignment, or unintended outcomes. This shifts trust from an implicit expectation about model behavior to an explicit, measurable, and enforceable product guarantee. We also present a simulation study analyzing the social benefits of applying ARS to agentic transactions. ARS's implementation can be found at https://github.com/t54-labs/AgenticRiskStandard.

Wenyue Hua, Tianyi Peng, Chi Wang +4

Microsoft Research · Columbia University · Google DeepMind +2

AI Risk ManagementTrust in AIAI Agent Reliability
AskPDF
Apr 2, 2026

Synthetic Trust Attacks: Modeling How Generative AI Manipulates Human Decisions in Social Engineering Fraud

Imagine receiving a video call from your CFO, surrounded by colleagues, asking you to urgently authorise a confidential transfer. You comply. Every person on that call was fake, and you just lost $25 million. This is not a hypothetical. It happened in Hong Kong in January 2024, and it is becoming the template for a new generation of fraud. AI has not invented a new crime. It has industrialised an ancient one: the manufacture of trust. This paper proposes Synthetic Trust Attacks (STAs) as a formal threat category and introduces STAM, the Synthetic Trust Attack Model, an eight-stage operational framework covering the full attack chain from adversary reconnaissance through post-compliance leverage. The core argument is this: existing defenses target synthetic media detection, but the real attack surface is the victim's decision. When human deepfake detection accuracy sits at approximately 55.5%, barely above chance, and LLM scam agents achieve 46% compliance versus 18% for human operators while evading safety filters entirely, the perception layer has already failed. Defense must move to the decision layer. We present a five-category Trust-Cue Taxonomy, a reproducible 17-field Incident Coding Schema with a pilot-coded example, and four falsifiable hypotheses linking attack structure to compliance outcomes. The paper further operationalizes the author's practitioner-developed Calm, Check, Confirm protocol as a research-grade decision-layer defense. Synthetic credibility, not synthetic media, is the true attack surface of the AI fraud era.

Muhammad Tahir Ashraf

Chair, AAAI Pakistan Chapter (aaai.pk) — Chapter ID: 647885 · Founder and CEO, PureDesigners Ltd. | IBM Watson Silver Partner

CybersecurityTrust in AI
AskPDF
Apr 1, 2026

Trust and Reliance on AI in Education: AI Literacy and Need for Cognition as Moderators

As generative AI systems are integrated into educational settings, students often encounter AI-generated output while working through learning tasks, either by requesting help or through integrated tools. Trust in AI can influence how students interpret and use that output, including whether they evaluate it critically or exhibit overreliance. We investigate how students' trust relates to their appropriate reliance on an AI assistant during programming problem-solving tasks, and whether this relationship differs by learner characteristics. With 432 undergraduate participants, students' completed Python output-prediction problems while receiving recommendations and explanations from an AI chatbot, including accurate and intentionally misleading suggestions. We operationalize reliance behaviorally as the extent to which students' responses reflected appropriate use of the AI assistant's suggestions, accepting them when they were correct and rejecting them when they were incorrect. Pre- and post-task surveys assessed trust in the assistant, AI literacy, need for cognition, programming self-efficacy, and programming literacy. Results showed a non-linear relationship in which higher trust was associated with lower appropriate reliance, suggesting weaker discrimination between correct and incorrect recommendations. This relationship was significantly moderated by students' AI literacy and need for cognition. These findings highlight the need for future work on instructional and system supports that encourage more reflective evaluation of AI assistance during problem-solving.

Griffin Pitts, Neha Rani, Weedguet Mildort

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA · University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Trust in AIGenerative AI in EducationComputer Science EducationAI Literacy
AskPDF
Mar 31, 2026

A User-Centric Analysis of Explainability in AI-Based Medical Image Diagnosis

In recent years, AI systems in the medical domain have advanced significantly. However, despite outperforming humans, they are rarely used in practice since it is often not clear how they make their decisions. Optimal explanation and visualization of the decision process are often lacking. Therefore, we conducted a comparative user-centric analysis of the latest state-of-the-art textual, visual and multimodal explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods for medical image diagnosis. Our survey of 33 physicians showed that 88% agree that it is important that AI explains the diagnosis -- 64% even strongly agree. A combination of bounding box and report is rated better than the other tested XAI methods in the evaluated aspects understandability, completeness, speed, and applicability. We even tested the potential negative impact of false AI-based medical image diagnoses and found that 50% of the participants trusted false AI diagnoses over all tested XAI methods.

Julia Wagner, Tim Schlippe

IU International University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Explainable Medical Image AnalysisExplainability EvaluationExplainable Image ClassificationTrust in AI
AskPDF
Mar 28, 2026

The Hidden Costs of AI-Mediated Political Outreach: Persuasion and AI Penalties in the US and UK

As AI-enabled systems become available for political campaign outreach, an important question has received little empirical attention: how do people evaluate the communicative practices these systems represent, and what consequences do those evaluations carry? Most research on AI-enabled persuasion examines attitude change under enforced exposure, leaving aside whether people regard AI-mediated outreach as legitimate or not. We address this gap with a preregistered 2x2 experiment conducted in the United States and United Kingdom (N = 1,800 per country) varying outreach intent (informational vs.~persuasive) and type of interaction partner (human vs.~AI-mediated) in the context of political issues that respondents consider highly important. We find consistent evidence for two evaluation penalties. A persuasion penalty emerges across nearly all outcomes in both countries: explicitly persuasive outreach is evaluated as less acceptable, more threatening to personal autonomy, less beneficial, and more damaging to organizational trust than informational outreach, consistent with reactance to perceived threats to attitudinal freedom. An AI penalty is consistent with a distinct mechanism: AI-mediated outreach triggers normative concerns about appropriate communicative agents, producing similarly negative evaluations across five outcomes in both countries. As automated outreach becomes more widespread, how people judge it may matter for democratic communication just as much as whether it changes minds.

Andreas Jungherr, Adrian Rauchfleisch

University of Bamberg · National Taiwan University

Political CommunicationTrust in AI
AskPDF
Mar 26, 2026

On the Foundations of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence

We prove that platform-deterministic inference is necessary and sufficient for trustworthy AI. We formalize this as the Determinism Thesis and introduce trust entropy to quantify the cost of non-determinism, proving that verification failure probability equals 1 - 2^{-H_T} exactly. We prove a Determinism-Verification Collapse: verification under determinism requires O(1) hash comparison; without it, the verifier faces an intractable membership problem. IEEE 754 floating-point arithmetic fundamentally violates the determinism requirement. We resolve this by constructing a pure integer inference engine that achieves bitwise identical output across ARM and x86. In 82 cross-architecture tests on models up to 6.7B parameters, we observe zero hash mismatches. Four geographically distributed nodes produce identical outputs, verified by 356 on-chain attestation transactions. Every major trust property of AI systems (fairness, robustness, privacy, safety, alignment) presupposes platform determinism. Our system, 99,000 lines of Rust deployed across three continents, establishes that AI trust is a question of arithmetic.

TJ Dunham

ARC

Trustworthy AITrust in AIAI AssuranceML Reproducibility
AskPDF
Mar 25, 2026

Resisting Humanization: Ethical Front-End Design Choices in AI for Sensitive Contexts

Ethical debates in AI have primarily focused on back-end issues such as data governance, model training, and algorithmic decision-making. Less attention has been paid to the ethical significance of front-end design choices, such as the interaction and representation-based elements through which users interact with AI systems. This gap is particularly significant for Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems, where humanizing design elements such as dialogue-based interaction, emotive language, personality modes, and anthropomorphic metaphors are increasingly prevalent. This work argues that humanization in AI front-end design is a value-driven choice that profoundly shapes users' mental models, trust calibration, and behavioral responses. Drawing on research in human-computer interaction (HCI), conversational AI, and value-sensitive design, we examine how interfaces can play a central role in misaligning user expectations, fostering misplaced trust, and subtly undermining user autonomy, especially in vulnerable contexts. To ground this analysis, we discuss two AI systems developed by Chayn, a nonprofit organization supporting survivors of gender-based violence. Chayn is extremely cautious when building AI that interacts with or impacts survivors by operationalizing their trauma-informed design principles. This Chayn case study illustrates how ethical considerations can motivate principled restraint in interface design, challenging engagement-based norms in contemporary AI products. We argue that ethical front-end AI design is a form of procedural ethics, enacted through interaction choices rather than embedded solely in system logic.

Silvia Rossi, Diletta Huyskes, Mackenzie Jorgensen

Immanence Trento, Italy · University of Milan Immanence Milan, Italy · Northumbria University Immanence Newcastle, UK

Human-AI InteractionAnthropomorphism in AIHuman-Centered AITrust in AI
AskPDF
Mar 25, 2026

Trust or Check? Understanding the (Evolutionary) Dynamics of User Trust in AI Systems

As the capabilities and adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems grow, trust in these AI systems is an increasingly urgent concern. Much research has focused on models of AI governance and has primarily examined incentives for safe development and effective regulation. Hence they typically represented users trust as a one-shot adoption choice rather than as a dynamic, evolving process shaped by repeated interactions. We instead model trust as the dynamic choice of reduced monitoring in a repeated, asymmetric interaction between users and AI developers, where checking developers' behaviour is costly. Using evolutionary game theory, we study how users' strategies of trust and developers' strategies of providing safe (compliant) or unsafe (non-compliant) AI co-evolve under different levels of monitoring cost and institutional regimes. We conduct the analysis on both imitation-based and learning-based perspectives, with the stochastic finite-population dynamics, the infinite-population replicator analysis and the reinforcement learning analysis. We find three robust long-run regimes: no adoption by users while developers provide unsafe AI, unsafe but widely adopted systems, and safe systems that are widely adopted. Only the last is desirable, and it arises when penalties for unsafe behaviour exceed the extra cost of safety and users can still afford to monitor at least occasionally. Our results formally support governance proposals that emphasise transparency, low-cost monitoring, and meaningful sanctions, and they show that neither regulation alone nor blind user trust is sufficient to prevent the drift towards unsafe or low-adoption outcomes.

Adeela Bashir, Zhao Song, Ndidi Bianca Ogbo +21

School Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies, Teesside University · School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham · Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam +7

Trust in AIHuman Oversight of AIAI SafetyAI Governance
AskPDF
Mar 23, 2026

Learning to Trust: How Humans Mentally Recalibrate AI Confidence Signals

Productive human-AI collaboration requires appropriate reliance, yet contemporary AI systems are often miscalibrated, exhibiting systematic overconfidence or underconfidence. We investigate whether humans can learn to mentally recalibrate AI confidence signals through repeated experience. In a behavioral experiment (N = 200), participants predicted the AI's correctness across four AI calibration conditions: standard, overconfidence, underconfidence, and a counterintuitive "reverse confidence" mapping. Results demonstrate robust learning across all conditions, with participants significantly improving their accuracy, discrimination, and calibration alignment over 50 trials. We present a computational model utilizing a linear-in-log-odds (LLO) transformation and a Rescorla-Wagner learning rule to explain these dynamics. The model reveals that humans adapt by updating their baseline trust and confidence sensitivity, using asymmetric learning rates to prioritize the most informative errors. While humans can compensate for monotonic miscalibration, we identify a significant boundary in the reverse confidence scenario, where a substantial proportion of participants struggled to override initial inductive biases. These findings provide a mechanistic account of how humans adapt their trust in AI confidence signals through experience.

ZhaoBin Li, Mark Steyvers

Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine

Trust in AIHuman-AI CollaborationHuman-in-the-Loop AI
AskPDF
Mar 23, 2026

Do Consumers Accept AIs as Moral Compliance Agents?

Consumers are generally resistant to Artificial Intelligence (AI) involvement in moral decision-making, perceiving moral agency as requiring uniquely human traits. This research investigates whether consumers might instead accept AIs in the role of moral compliance, where AI upholds pre-existing moral norms without exercising subjective discretion. Across five studies this research shows that consumers evaluate AI more positively than human agents in moral compliance roles. The findings reveal that this preference arises from inferences of AI's lack of ulterior motives, which are often attributed to human agents. While previous studies have focused on AI as a decision-maker, this work demonstrates the critical role of upholding pre-existing rules, a role in which AI is perceived to excel. These findings contribute to understanding consumer acceptance of moral AI and provide actionable insights for organizations seeking to leverage AI in ethical oversight. By positioning AI as a moral compliance agent, companies can address consumer skepticism, enhance trust, and improve perceptions of corporate ethicality.

Greg Nyilasy, Abraham Ryan Ade Putra Hito, Jennifer Overbeck +2

Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne, 198 Berkeley St, University of Melbourne, VIC 3053, Australia · Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, 200 Leicester St, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia · School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia +1

Trust in AIResponsible AIAI GovernanceHuman-AI Decision Making
AskPDF
Mar 20, 2026

Overreliance on AI in Information-seeking from Video Content

The ubiquity of multimedia content is reshaping online information spaces, particularly in social media environments. At the same time, search is being rapidly transformed by generative AI, with large language models (LLMs) routinely deployed as intermediaries between users and multimedia content to retrieve and summarize information. Despite their growing influence, the impact of LLM inaccuracies and potential vulnerabilities on multimedia information-seeking tasks remains largely unexplored. We investigate how generative AI affects accuracy, efficiency, and confidence in information retrieval from videos. We conduct an experiment with around 900 participants on 8,000+ video-based information-seeking tasks, comparing behavior across three conditions: (1) access to videos only, (2) access to videos with LLM-based AI assistance, and (3) access to videos with a deceiving AI assistant designed to provide false answers. We find that AI assistance increases accuracy by 3-7% when participants viewed the relevant video segment, and by 27-35% when they did not. Efficiency increases by 10% for short videos and 25% for longer ones. However, participants tend to over-rely on AI outputs, resulting in accuracy drops of up to 32% when interacting with the deceiving AI. Alarmingly, self-reported confidence in answers remains stable across all three conditions. Our findings expose fundamental safety risks in AI-mediated video information retrieval.

Anders Giovanni Møller, Elisa Bassignana, Francesco Pierri +1

IT University of Copenhagen · Bocconi University · Politecnico di Milano +1

Video QATrust in AIGenerative AI Evaluation
AskPDF
Mar 19, 2026

Through the Looking-Glass: AI-Mediated Video Communication Reduces Interpersonal Trust and Confidence in Judgments

AI-based tools that mediate, enhance or generate parts of video communication may interfere with how people evaluate trustworthiness and credibility. In two preregistered online experiments (N = 2,000), we examined whether AI-mediated video retouching, background replacement and avatars affect interpersonal trust, people's ability to detect lies and confidence in their judgments. Participants watched short videos of speakers making truthful or deceptive statements across three conditions with varying levels of AI mediation. We observed that perceived trust and confidence in judgments declined in AI-mediated videos, particularly in settings in which some participants used avatars while others did not. However, participants' actual judgment accuracy remained unchanged, and they were no more inclined to suspect those using AI tools of lying. Our findings provide evidence against concerns that AI mediation undermines people's ability to distinguish truth from lies, and against cue-based accounts of lie detection more generally. They highlight the importance of trustworthy AI mediation tools in contexts where not only truth, but also trust and confidence matter.

Nelson Navajas Fernández, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Maurice Jakesch

Bauhaus University, Weimar, Germany · Stanford University, Stanford, United States

Trust in AI
AskPDF
Mar 14, 2026

The Institutional Scaling Law: Non-Monotonic Fitness, Capability-Trust Divergence, and Symbiogenetic Scaling in Generative AI

Classical scaling laws model AI performance as monotonically improving with model size. We challenge this assumption by deriving the Institutional Scaling Law, showing that institutional fitness -- jointly measuring capability, trust, affordability, and sovereignty -- is non-monotonic in model scale, with an environment-dependent optimum N*(epsilon). Our framework extends the Sustainability Index of Han et al. (2025) from hardware-level to ecosystem-level analysis, proving that capability and trust formally diverge beyond critical scale (Capability-Trust Divergence). We further derive a Symbiogenetic Scaling correction demonstrating that orchestrated systems of domain-specific models can outperform frontier generalists in their native deployment environments. These results are contextualized within a formal evolutionary taxonomy of generative AI spanning five eras (1943-present), with analysis of frontier lab dynamics, sovereign AI emergence, and post-training alignment evolution from RLHF through GRPO. The Institutional Scaling Law predicts that the next phase transition will be driven not by larger models but by better-orchestrated systems of domain-specific models adapted to specific institutional niches.

Mark Baciak, Thomas A. Cellucci

Ekta Inc.

Trustworthy AILanguage Model Scaling LawsTrust in AIResponsible AI
AskPDF