Addressing Trust in AI Systems through Education: A Didactic Perspective

Machine learning (ML) education faces two persistent and connected obstacles: many educational tools present ML as an opaque black box, which leaves learners with a superficial understanding, and this same opacity prevents users from forming the calibrated trust that appropriate reliance on AI systems requires. We present ICE-T, a didactic framework that integrates three mutually reinforcing facets: intermodal transfer grounded in Bruner's enactive, iconic, and symbolic modes of representation, computational thinking operationalized through the Use-Modify-Create progression, and explanatory thinking supported by a process model. Connecting the framework to the empirical literature on algorithm aversion, AI literacy, and mental model formation, and to systematic reviews of the K-12 ML activity landscape, we argue that the three facets supply the cognitive mechanisms that the trust calibration literature identifies as drivers of appropriate reliance: representational richness, graduated process control, and the capacity to contextualize errors. On this basis, we propose that trust calibration be treated as an explicit educational objective, with ICE-T as a principled and scalable means of achieving it.

Explainable Uncertainty Estimation for Reliable Medical AI

Artificial intelligence has strong potential to support clinical decision-making, yet its adoption in healthcare remains limited due to a lack of trust. Uncertainty estimation can signal unreliable predictions, and explainable AI (XAI) can clarify how predictions are made but existing methods treat them separately, providing no feature-level insight into why a prediction is uncertain or which tests to prioritize to reduce it. To address this gap, we propose explainable uncertainty estimation, which unifies uncertainty estimation and XAI to both quantify uncertainty and explain feature-level contributions. We introduce the Expected Gradients Reconstruction Uncertainty Estimate (egRUE), which incorporates prediction explanations into its uncertainty computation and decomposes uncertainty into feature-wise contributions. We prove theoretical properties of egRUE and show through experiments that it improves reliability and interpretability compared to existing methods. A user study with medical experts further demonstrates that egRUE's explanations improve calibrated trust over uncertainty scores alone, increasing confidence in correct predictions and reducing confidence in incorrect ones. By combining prediction uncertainty with feature-level explanations, egRUE strengthens decision-making support in safety-critical healthcare settings, clarifying both when predictions may be unreliable and which features drive that uncertainty.

PredAct-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Augmented Dialogue under Controlled Tool Noise

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in task-oriented dialogue systems that support multi-step decision-making in high-stakes domains such as education, healthcare, and finance. However, existing benchmarks typically assume perfectly accurate tool outputs, overlooking the reality that deployed systems must operate with noisy tools and human decision-makers whose trust in the agent is itself uncertain. Such conditions are common in practice, for example, a clinician using a diagnostic prediction tool or an advisor relying on a model that forecasts student outcomes from historical records. We introduce PREDACTBENCH, a benchmark for evaluating dialogue agents paired with statistically imperfect tools, using education as a measurable testbed where ground truth outcomes and clear intervention decisions are available. First, we build a benchmark for AI-assisted human decision-making, where the AI uses noisy predictors to help guide a user. Second, we introduce episode-level Relative AI-Reliance (RAIR) and Relative self-reliance (RSR) metrics, extending prior trust calibration framework to multi-turn dialogue. Third, we evaluate 13 state-of-the-art closed and open source LLMs on two educational datasets, OULAD (real assessment trajectories from the UK Open University) and PREDACT-CS (60 courses with real final grade outcomes and synthetically generated weekly score trajectories), alongside a human study with instructors and teaching assistants. We find that when tools are noisy, SOTA models are supposed to provide visibility to teachers so that they do not over-rely on wrong suggestions or hallucinations, but current models fail to do that. We offer PREDACTBENCH to help build better LLMs as AI decision support systems to help teachers.

The Dynamic Verifiable Multi-Agent Human Agentic Loyalty Loop (DVM-HALL) Model and the Net Human-Agent Score (NHAS) in Autonomous Commerce

The rapid proliferation of Agentic Artificial Intelligence fundamentally disrupts traditional customer loyalty paradigms. As AI evolves from passive recommendation algorithms to autonomous, goal-directed agents capable of executing purchasing decisions, the conventional understanding of consumer-brand relationships requires a structural reevaluation. By synthesizing extant literature across human-machine teaming, consumer decision-making, and algorithmic trust dynamics, we demonstrate that traditional loyalty models fail to account for algorithmic bounded rationality and constructed autonomy. To address this, we introduce the Dynamic Verifiable Multi-Agent Human Agentic Loyalty Loop (DVM-HALL) model. We formalize brand choice via a softmax probability formulation where human emotional equity, agentic machine-experience utility, calibrated trust, delegated authority, and verifiable execution jointly determine selection. The model features recursive updating mechanisms to dynamically calibrate trust and delegation after each interaction. Crucially, the framework integrates a verifiable execution layer for Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and tokenized loyalty settings, incorporating execution risks -- such as gas costs, slippage, MEV exposure, and smart-contract vulnerabilities -- as core predictors of agentic brand preference. Furthermore, we introduce the Net Human-Agent Score (NHAS), an auditable, risk-weighted metric designed to measure human-agent alignment using human feedback, execution logs, benchmark comparisons, and verifiable receipts. Finally, we propose a comprehensive three-stage empirical validation plan spanning controlled shopping experiments, multi-agent market simulations, and DeFi testbeds. This framework provides the foundational theory required for brands to navigate the impending transition toward machine customers.

Uncertainty-Aware Trust Estimation for Multi-LLM Systems via Structured Expert Judgement

Large Language Model (LLM) ensembles are increasingly used to improve reliability by combining predictions from multiple LLMs. However, existing aggregation methods typically assume that all models are equally trustworthy, overlooking differences in uncertainty quality. This assumption is poorly suited to heterogeneous LLMs, whose reliability and capability vary significantly, making naive aggregation vulnerable to unreliable or adversarial experts. In this work, we formulate multi-LLM aggregation as a problem of uncertainty-aware trust estimation. We adapt structured expert judgment from decision theory, using context-aware calibration questions to estimate expert reliability based on the quality of its probabilistic predictions. Specifically, we employ Cooke-style log weighting, which penalises overconfident incorrect predictions and favours well-calibrated experts. We evaluate our approach on MMLU and MMLU-Pro across homogeneous, heterogeneous, and contaminated expert panels. Results show that while aggregation methods perform similarly in homogeneous settings, Cooke weighting becomes critical under heterogeneity and contamination. It achieves a superior accuracy-reliability balance and remains robust when unreliable experts are introduced. These findings suggest that Multi-LLM aggregation requires not just combining predictions, but calibrating trust under uncertainty.

AI Adoption Across a Multinational Workforce: Sociotechnical Conditions for GenAI Acceptance in Human Resources

Generative AI (GenAI) deployment in the workplace is accelerating rapidly. Nevertheless, questions of who adopts, who benefits, and who is left behind and why are still understudied. In this paper, we investigate these dynamics in the context of a multinational tech company transitioning from a legacy Human Resources (HR) search system to a GenAI-supported system, analyzing search log data, survey data (n=25), and ten semi-structured interviews. Our findings show that adoption depended on the fit between the GenAI system's design assumptions and employees' work positionalities (role, spoken language, tenure). Further, we find that employees' trust in GenAI answers was built through source-checking, comparison among systems, and seeking input from colleagues or HR when in doubt. Our contribution is twofold. First, we provide empirical evidence of workplace GenAI adoption during a live organizational transition, showing that adoption is influenced by factors such as situational fit, search literacy, and trust calibration. It is also further shaped by knowledge conditions such as the system's content quality, employee training, and guidance. Second, we translate these findings into design considerations for inclusive deployment and adoption in high-stakes environments such as HR. We argue that organizations should design systems considering the role and context-sensitive benefits they yield to different social groups. They also need to treat the organizational knowledge infrastructure as AI infrastructure to improve the accountability and usability of GenAI systems

CauTion: Knowing When to Trust LLMs for Ensemble Causal Discovery

Causal discovery from observational data remains challenging due to the fundamental limitations of purely statistical methods, such as statistical distinguishability within equivalence classes and sensitivity to finite sample sizes. While large language models (LLMs) offer a promising source of domain knowledge to complement statistical inference, existing LLM-augmented methods are vulnerable to LLM errors and incur high token costs. Moreover, reliance on a single data-centric algorithm can make results sensitive to algorithm-specific biases. To address these limitations, we propose CauTion, a framework that reliably integrates LLM domain knowledge into an ensemble of statistical causal discovery algorithms through consensus filtering and LLM reliability estimation. CauTion proceeds in three stages. First, an algorithm ensemble utilizes a consensus voting to resolve up to 96% of edges on which algorithms agree, achieving near-perfect accuracy on the filtered consensus edges. Second, a trust-calibrated arbitration mechanism estimates the relative reliability of the LLM and the algorithms via an annotation-free trust calibration procedure, which is then utilized to govern a trust-weighted voting process that restricts LLM arbitration exclusively to edges with unreliable algorithmic evidence. Third, a cycle repair step is applied to guarantee the final causal graph is validly acyclic. Experiments on six datasets demonstrate that CauTion consistently outperforms both data-centric and LLM-augmented baselines, with larger gains on larger graphs and strong robustness to LLM errors. Code is available at https://github.com/OpenCausaLab/CauTion.