Cited by 101Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyEthics and Social Impacts of AI

When Confidence Meets Accuracy: Exploring the Effects of Multiple Performance Indicators on Trust in Machine Learning Models

Open access
Rechkemmer, Amy, Yin, Ming·2022·CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Previous research shows that laypeople’s trust in a machine learning model can be affected by both performance measurements of the model on the aggregate level and performance estimates on individual predictions. However, it is unclear how people would trust the model when multiple performance indicators are presented at the same time. We conduct an exploratory human-subject experiment to answer this question. We find that while the level of model confidence significantly affects people’s belief in model accuracy, both the model’s stated and observed accuracy generally have a larger impact on people’s willingness to follow the model’s predictions as well as their self-reported levels of trust in the model, especially after observing the model’s performance in practice. We hope the empirical evidence reported in this work could open doors to further studies to advance understanding of how people perceive, process, and react to performance-related information of machine learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491102.3501967

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al. found that providing users with more information through increased interpretability and transparency decreased the user's capabilities to detect and correct mistakes by the system.

    “Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al. [108] found that providing users with more information (through increased interpretability and transparency) decreased the user's capabilities to detect and correct mistakes by the system.”
  • Endo calibrations are achieved by presenting information about system confidence throughout interaction using cues or warning signals, or by increasing transparency through explanations.

    “This is achieved by, for example, presenting information about a system's confdence throughout the interaction [90, 104, 145] using cues or warning signals or by increasing a system's transparency through explanations [108].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rechkemmer, A., & Yin, M.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Venue
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-29
Pages
1-14
OpenAlex
W4224982959
Cited by
97
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4
FWCI
10.09
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (National Science Foundation) (1850335)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
trust in machine learning, model confidence, model accuracy, performance indicators, laypeople, human-machine interaction, explainable AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review