# From Accuracy to Readiness: Metrics and Benchmarks for Human-AI Decision-Making

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18895 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18895/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 51 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- ["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)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14779/) (2020)
- [Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.00973/) (2020)
- [One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03012/) (2019)
- [Learning to Complement Humans](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00582/) (2020)
- [AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01941/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02187/) (2023)
- [The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.00782/) (2019)
- [Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07255/) (2023)
- [Interactive Model Cards: A Human-Centered Approach to Model Documentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.02894/) (2022)
- [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)
- [A Decision Theoretic Framework for Measuring AI Reliance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.15356/) (2024)
- [Toward Supporting Perceptual Complementarity in Human-AI Collaboration via Reflection on Unobservables](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.13834/) (2022)
- [Conceptualising Contestability: Perspectives on Contesting Algorithmic Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.01774/) (2021)
- [Understanding the Effect of Counterfactual Explanations on Trust and Reliance on AI for Human-AI Collaborative Clinical Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.04375/) (2023)
- [Towards Uncertainty Aware Task Delegation and Human-AI Collaborative Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18066/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Bounded Reasoning: Cognitive Hierarchy in Human-versus-AI Cyber Defense](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04878/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are deployed as collaborators in human decision-making. Yet, evaluation practices focus primarily on model accuracy rather than whether human-AI teams are prepared to collaborate safely and effectively. Empirical evidence shows that many failures arise from miscalibrated reliance, including overuse when AI is wrong and underuse when it is helpful. This paper proposes a measurement framework for evaluating human-AI decision-making centered on team readiness. We introduce a four part taxonomy of evaluation metrics spanning outcomes, reliance behavior, safety signals, and learning over time, and connect these metrics to the Understand-Control-Improve (U-C-I) lifecycle of human-AI onboarding and collaboration. By operationalizing evaluation through interaction traces rather than model properties or self-reported trust, our framework enables deployment-relevant assessment of calibration, error recovery, and governance. We aim to support more comparable benchmarks and cumulative research on human-AI readiness, advancing safer and more accountable human-AI collaboration.