Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Algorithmic Decision-Making Safeguarded by Human Knowledge

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 2211.11028 v1 pith:D6YBYL7D submitted 2022-11-20 stat.ML cs.HCcs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.HCcs.LG
keywords algorithmicdecisionhumanknowledgeaugmentationdataanalystsdecision-making
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Commercial AI solutions provide analysts and managers with data-driven business intelligence for a wide range of decisions, such as demand forecasting and pricing. However, human analysts may have their own insights and experiences about the decision-making that is at odds with the algorithmic recommendation. In view of such a conflict, we provide a general analytical framework to study the augmentation of algorithmic decisions with human knowledge: the analyst uses the knowledge to set a guardrail by which the algorithmic decision is clipped if the algorithmic output is out of bound, and seems unreasonable. We study the conditions under which the augmentation is beneficial relative to the raw algorithmic decision. We show that when the algorithmic decision is asymptotically optimal with large data, the non-data-driven human guardrail usually provides no benefit. However, we point out three common pitfalls of the algorithmic decision: (1) lack of domain knowledge, such as the market competition, (2) model misspecification, and (3) data contamination. In these cases, even with sufficient data, the augmentation from human knowledge can still improve the performance of the algorithmic decision.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools