Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the over-reliance on accuracy metrics in evaluating human-AI decision-making, arguing that team readiness is a more critical factor for safe and effective collaboration. They propose a measurement framework based on a four-part taxonomy of metrics (outcomes, reliance behavior, safety signals, learning over time) linked to the Understand-Control-Improve (U-C-I) lifecycle. The framework emphasizes interaction traces over model properties or self-reported trust to enable deployment-relevant assessment of calibration, error recovery, and governance.
Human-AI teams often fail not because AI is inaccurate, but because humans miscalibrate their reliance on it, highlighting the need for readiness metrics beyond accuracy.
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.
