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

Abstract

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.