# Dynamic Trust Calibration Using Contextual Bandits

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.23497 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.23497/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [Deep Learning in Neural Networks: An Overview](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1404.7828/) (2014)
- [Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02114/) (2020)
- [Predict Responsibly: Improving Fairness and Accuracy by Learning to Defer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.06664/) (2017)
- [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)
- [Algorithms for multi-armed bandit problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1402.6028/) (2014)
- [Learning When to Advise Human Decision Makers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.13578/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Trust calibration between humans and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is crucial for optimal decision-making in collaborative settings. Excessive trust can lead users to accept AI-generated outputs without question, overlooking critical flaws, while insufficient trust may result in disregarding valuable insights from AI systems, hindering performance. Despite its importance, there is currently no definitive and objective method for measuring trust calibration between humans and AI. Current approaches lack standardization and consistent metrics that can be broadly applied across various contexts, and they don't distinguish between the formation of opinions and subsequent human decisions. In this work, we propose a novel and objective method for dynamic trust calibration, introducing a standardized trust calibration measure and an indicator. By utilizing Contextual Bandits-an adaptive algorithm that incorporates context into decision-making-our indicator dynamically assesses when to trust AI contributions based on learned contextual information. We evaluate this indicator across three diverse datasets, demonstrating that effective trust calibration results in significant improvements in decision-making performance, as evidenced by 10 to 38% increase in reward metrics. These findings not only enhance theoretical understanding but also provide practical guidance for developing more trustworthy AI systems supporting decisions in critical domains, for example, disease diagnoses and criminal justice.