Calibration has been proposed as a way to enhance the reliability and adoption of machine learning classifiers. We study a particular aspect of this proposal: how does calibrating a classification model affect the decisions made by non-expert humans consuming the model's predictions? We perform a Human-Computer-Interaction (HCI) experiment to ascertain the effect of calibration on (i) trust in the model, and (ii) the correlation between decisions and predictions. We also propose further corrections to the reported calibrated scores based on Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory from behavioral economics, and study the effect of these corrections on trust and decision-making. We find that calibration is not sufficient on its own; the prospect theory correction is crucial for increasing the correlation between human decisions and the model's predictions. While this increased correlation suggests higher trust in the model, responses to ``Do you trust the model more?" are unaffected by the method used.

In many practical applications of AI, an AI model is used as a decision aid for human users. The AI provides advice that a human (sometimes) incorporates into their decision-making process. The AI advice is often presented with some measure of "confidence" that the human can use to calibrate how much they depend on or trust the advice. In this paper, we present an initial exploration that suggests showing AI models as more confident than they actually are, even when the original AI is well-calibrated, can improve human-AI performance (measured as the accuracy and confidence of the human's final prediction after seeing the AI advice). We first train a model to predict human incorporation of AI advice using data from thousands of human-AI interactions.

In many practical applications of AI, an AI model is used as a decision aid for human users. The AI provides advice that a human (sometimes) incorporates into their decision-making process. The AI advice is often presented with some measure of "confidence" that the human can use to calibrate how much they depend on or trust the advice. In this paper, we present an initial exploration that suggests showing AI models as more confident than they actually are, even when the original AI is well-calibrated, can improve human-AI performance (measured as the accuracy and confidence of the human's final prediction after seeing the AI advice). We first train a model to predict human incorporation of AI advice using data from thousands of human-AI interactions.

Machine Learning (ML) models are often complex and difficult to interpret due to their 'black-box' characteristics. Interpretability of a ML model is usually defined as the degree to which a human can understand the cause of decisions reached by a ML model. Interpretability is of extremely high importance in many fields of healthcare due to high levels of risk related to decisions based on ML models. Calibration of the ML model outputs is another issue often overlooked in the application of ML models in practice. This paper represents an early work in examination of prediction model calibration impact on the interpretability of the results. We present a use case of a patient in diabetes screening prediction scenario and visualize results using three different techniques to demonstrate the differences between calibrated and uncalibrated regularized regression model.