# Towards Uncertainty Aware Task Delegation and Human-AI Collaborative Decision-Making

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.18066 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18066/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 34 of its 88 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 May 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 34)

- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.04977/) (2017)
- [Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.00069/) (2018)
- [Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14779/) (2020)
- [Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02114/) (2020)
- [Deep k-Nearest Neighbors: Towards Confident, Interpretable and Robust Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.04765/) (2018)
- [To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.11783/) (2018)
- [Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07487/) (2020)
- [One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03012/) (2019)
- [A Theoretically Grounded Application of Dropout in Recurrent Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.05287/) (2015)
- [On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.07901/) (2018)
- [To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09692/) (2021)
- [Human-Centered Tools for Coping with Imperfect Algorithms during Medical Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.02960/) (2019)
- [Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: A Survey of Empirical Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11471/) (2021)
- [The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.00782/) (2019)
- [A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.08035/) (2020)
- [Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07255/) (2023)
- [Who Should I Trust: AI or Myself? Leveraging Human and AI Correctness Likelihood to Promote Appropriate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05809/) (2023)
- [Beyond Expertise and Roles: A Framework to Characterize the Stakeholders of Interpretable Machine Learning and their Needs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.09824/) (2021)
- [Trustworthy AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.02272/) (2020)
- [Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Support](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.02310/) (2022)
- [Embedding Comparator: Visualizing Differences in Global Structure and Local Neighborhoods via Small Multiples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.04853/) (2019)
- [Deeply Uncertain: Comparing Methods of Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10710/) (2020)
- [Human-AI Collaboration: The Effect of AI Delegation on Human Task Performance and Task Satisfaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.09224/) (2023)
- [Efficient Saliency Maps for Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.11293/) (2019)
- [Understanding Frontline Workers' and Unhoused Individuals' Perspectives on AI Used in Homeless Services](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.09743/) (2023)
- ["Brilliant AI Doctor" in Rural China: Tensions and Challenges in AI-Powered CDSS Deployment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.01524/) (2021)
- [Towards Relatable Explainable AI with the Perceptual Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.14005/) (2021)
- [Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.00625/) (2021)
- [Toward Supporting Perceptual Complementarity in Human-AI Collaboration via Reflection on Unobservables](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.13834/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Intelligent AI Delegation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11865/) (2026)
- [When AI Persuades: Adversarial Explanation Attacks on Human Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.04003/) (2026)
- [From Accuracy to Readiness: Metrics and Benchmarks for Human-AI Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18895/) (2026)
- [Toward Human-AI Complementarity Across Diverse Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.04070/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Despite the growing promise of artificial intelligence (AI) in supporting decision-making across domains, fostering appropriate human reliance on AI remains a critical challenge. In this paper, we investigate the utility of exploring distance-based uncertainty scores for task delegation to AI and describe how these scores can be visualized through embedding representations for human-AI decision-making. After developing an AI-based system for physical stroke rehabilitation assessment, we conducted a study with 19 health professionals and 10 students in medicine/health to understand the effect of exploring distance-based uncertainty scores on users' reliance on AI. Our findings showed that distance-based uncertainty scores outperformed traditional probability-based uncertainty scores in identifying uncertain cases. In addition, after exploring confidence scores for task delegation and reviewing embedding-based visualizations of distance-based uncertainty scores, participants achieved an 8.20% higher rate of correct decisions, a 7.15% higher rate of changing their decisions to correct ones, and a 7.14% lower rate of incorrect changes after reviewing AI outputs than those reviewing probability-based uncertainty scores (p<0.01). Our findings highlight the potential of distance-based uncertainty scores to enhance decision accuracy and appropriate reliance on AI while discussing ongoing challenges for human-AI collaborative decision-making.