# Supporting Calibrated Reliance in Human-AI Collaboration: Different Strategies for Different Tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03237 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03237/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 14 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1311.2901/) (2013)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14779/) (2020)
- [Consistent Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expert](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.01862/) (2020)
- [Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.04608/) (2018)
- [Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02478/) (2020)
- [Predict Responsibly: Improving Fairness and Accuracy by Learning to Defer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.06664/) (2017)
- [ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.04326/) (2020)
- [Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08298/) (2020)
- [Effective Abstract Reasoning with Dual-Contrast Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.13720/) (2022)
- [Don't be Fooled: The Misinformation Effect of Explanations in Human-AI Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12809/) (2024)
- [Teaching People LLM's Errors and Getting it Right](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.21422/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As AI systems increasingly support human decision making, a central challenge is determining what information helps people recognize when to rely on AI predictions and when to question or override them. Across three controlled human-subject studies spanning abstract visual reasoning with RAVEN matrices and deductive logical reasoning with LSAT problems, we examine how different forms of AI support affect human--AI team performance. A multi-stage reveal study shows that AI predictions and explanations can affect objective accuracy and subjective confidence differently. In visual reasoning, LLM explanations do not improve accuracy beyond the predicted answer alone, and no additional support format significantly outperforms prediction-only support; predicted probabilities show the highest descriptive accuracy and error recovery, while a derived selective-automation policy provides a higher-performing reference benchmark. In language-based logical reasoning, by contrast, LLM explanations yield the highest accuracy and error recovery, outperforming expert-written explanations and probability-based support. These results show that no single support strategy is universally effective. Human--AI interfaces should instead be designed to support calibrated reliance and effective error recovery by matching the form of assistance to the task and the evidence available to users.