Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1906.01148 v1 pith:LV4TCFLO submitted 2019-06-04 cs.HC cs.LGstat.ML

A Case for Backward Compatibility for Human-AI Teams

classification cs.HC cs.LGstat.ML
keywords compatibilityhumanperformanceupdatescompatibledomainshigh-stakeshuman-ai
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

AI systems are being deployed to support human decision making in high-stakes domains. In many cases, the human and AI form a team, in which the human makes decisions after reviewing the AI's inferences. A successful partnership requires that the human develops insights into the performance of the AI system, including its failures. We study the influence of updates to an AI system in this setting. While updates can increase the AI's predictive performance, they may also lead to changes that are at odds with the user's prior experiences and confidence in the AI's inferences, hurting therefore the overall team performance. We introduce the notion of the compatibility of an AI update with prior user experience and present methods for studying the role of compatibility in human-AI teams. Empirical results on three high-stakes domains show that current machine learning algorithms do not produce compatible updates. We propose a re-training objective to improve the compatibility of an update by penalizing new errors. The objective offers full leverage of the performance/compatibility tradeoff, enabling more compatible yet accurate updates.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. What Types of Human-AI Teams Exist?

    cs.HC 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Analysis of 53 human-AI team papers yields five distinct clusters (AI Assistant, Ad-hoc Dependency, Ad-hoc Forced Dependency, Paired Equanimity, Group Equanimity) based on psychological team characteristics.