# The Response Shift Paradigm to Quantify Human Trust in AI Recommendations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.08979 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.08979/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01703/) (2019)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14779/) (2020)
- [On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.07901/) (2018)
- [The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.00782/) (2019)
- [A Classification Model for Sensing Human Trust in Machines Using EEG and GSR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09861/) (2018)
- [Machine learning and AI research for Patient Benefit: 20 Critical Questions on Transparency, Replicability, Ethics and Effectiveness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.10404/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Explainability, interpretability and how much they affect human trust in AI systems are ultimately problems of human cognition as much as machine learning, yet the effectiveness of AI recommendations and the trust afforded by end-users are typically not evaluated quantitatively. We developed and validated a general purpose Human-AI interaction paradigm which quantifies the impact of AI recommendations on human decisions. In our paradigm we confronted human users with quantitative prediction tasks: asking them for a first response, before confronting them with an AI's recommendations (and explanation), and then asking the human user to provide an updated final response. The difference between final and first responses constitutes the shift or sway in the human decision which we use as metric of the AI's recommendation impact on the human, representing the trust they place on the AI. We evaluated this paradigm on hundreds of users through Amazon Mechanical Turk using a multi-branched experiment confronting users with good/poor AI systems that had good, poor or no explainability. Our proof-of-principle paradigm allows one to quantitatively compare the rapidly growing set of XAI/IAI approaches in terms of their effect on the end-user and opens up the possibility of (machine) learning trust.