Joint human-AI inference holds immense potential to improve outcomes in human-supervised robot missions. Current day missions are generally in the AI-assisted setting, where the human operator makes the final inference based on the AI recommendation. However, due to failures in human judgement on when to accept or reject the AI recommendation, complementarity is rarely achieved. We investigate joint human-AI inference where the inference made with higher confidence is selected. Through a user study with N = 100 participants on a representative simulated robot teleoperation task, specifically studying the inference of robots' control delays we show that: a) Joint inference accuracy is higher and its extent is regulated by the confidence calibration of the AI agent, and b) Humans change their inferences based on AI recommendations and the extent and direction of this change is also regulated by the confidence calibration of the AI agent. Interestingly, our results show that pairing poorly-calibrated AI-DSS with humans hurts performance instead of helping the team, reiterating the need for AI-based decision support systems with good metacognitive sensitivity. To the best of our knowledge, our study presents the first application of a maximum-confidence-based heuristic for joint human-AI inference within a simulated robot teleoperation task.

In the context of AI decision support systems (AI-DSS), we argue that meeting the demands of ethical and explainable AI (XAI) is about developing AI-DSS to provide human decision-makers with three types of human-grounded explanations: reasons, counterfactuals, and confidence, an approach we refer to as the RCC approach. We begin by reviewing current empirical XAI literature that investigates the relationship between various methods for generating model explanations (e.g., LIME, SHAP, Anchors), the perceived trustworthiness of the model, and end-user accuracy. We demonstrate how current theories about what constitutes good human-grounded reasons either do not adequately explain this evidence or do not offer sound ethical advice for development. Thus, we offer a novel theory of human-machine interaction: the theory of epistemic quasi-partnerships (EQP). Finally, we motivate adopting EQP and demonstrate how it explains the empirical evidence, offers sound ethical advice, and entails adopting the RCC approach.