mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Whether to trust: the ML leap of faith

arXiv 2408.00786 ↗First posted 17 Jul 2024cs.CY cs.AI cs.HCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Human trust is a prerequisite to trustworthy AI adoption, yet trust remains poorly understood. Trust is often described as an attitude, but attitudes cannot be reliably measured or managed. Additionally, humans frequently conflate trust in an AI system, its machine learning (ML) technology, and its other component parts. Without fully understanding the 'leap of faith' involved in trusting ML, users cannot develop intrinsic trust in these systems. A common approach to building trust is to explain a ML model's reasoning process. However, such explanations often fail to resonate with non-experts due to the inherent complexity of ML systems and explanations are disconnected from users' own (unarticulated) mental models. This work puts forward an innovative way of directly building intrinsic trust in ML, by discerning and measuring the Leap of Faith (LoF) taken when a user decides to rely on ML. The LoF matrix captures the alignment between an ML model and a human expert's mental model. This match is rigorously and practically identified by feeding the user's data and objective function into both an ML agent and an expert-validated rules-based agent: a verified point of reference that can be tested a priori against a user's own mental model. This represents a new class of neuro-symbolic architecture. The LoF matrix reveals to the user the distance that constitutes the leap of faith between the rules-based and ML agents. For the first time, we propose trust metrics that evaluate whether users demonstrate trust through their actions rather than self-reported intent and whether such trust is deserved based on outcomes. The significance of the contribution is that it enables empirical assessment and management of ML trust drivers, to support trustworthy ML adoption. The approach is illustrated through a long-term high-stakes field study: a 3-month pilot of a multi-agent sleep-improvement system.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2024.

Builds on

4 of 42 references.

References · 4

  1. 2018Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospectscited by 257
  2. 2020Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AIcited by 166
  3. 2018On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detectioncited by 159
  4. 2020Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systemscited by 138

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Trusting Your AI Agent Emotionally and Cognitively: Development and Validation of a Semantic Differential Scale for AI Trust
  2. 2022Measuring an artificial intelligence agent's trust in humans using machine incentives
  3. 2025Can LLMs Reason About Trust?: A Pilot Study
  4. 2025A closer look at how large language models trust humans: patterns and biases
  5. 2026Evaluating LLM Alignment With Human Trust Models
  6. 2025Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation
  7. 2025Beware of "Explanations" of AI
  8. 2024Value Alignment and Trust in Human-Robot Interaction: Insights from Simulation and User Study