REVIEW 2 cited by
Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies
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
Signed reviews
abstract
Individual human decision-makers may benefit from different forms of support to improve decision outcomes, but when each form of support will yield better outcomes? In this work, we posit that personalizing access to decision support tools can be an effective mechanism for instantiating the appropriate use of AI assistance. Specifically, we propose the general problem of learning a decision support policy that, for a given input, chooses which form of support to provide to decision-makers for whom we initially have no prior information. We develop $\texttt{Modiste}$, an interactive tool to learn personalized decision support policies. $\texttt{Modiste}$ leverages stochastic contextual bandit techniques to personalize a decision support policy for each decision-maker and supports extensions to the multi-objective setting to account for auxiliary objectives like the cost of support. We find that personalized policies outperform offline policies, and, in the cost-aware setting, reduce the incurred cost with minimal degradation to performance. Our experiments include various realistic forms of support (e.g., expert consensus and predictions from a large language model) on vision and language tasks. Our human subject experiments validate our computational experiments, demonstrating that personalization can yield benefits in practice for real users, who interact with $\texttt{Modiste}$.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Negotiating Risk Boundaries in AI for Policing Through Mixed-Stakeholder Deliberation
A mixed-stakeholder UK workshop rated 13 AI policing use cases, rejecting recidivism risk assessment outright while accepting most others conditionally, and found that a racial-equity focus broadened, not narrowed, th...
-
Revisiting Rogers' Paradox in the Context of Human-AI Interaction
A simulation of Rogers' Paradox with an AI agent that learns the population average shows that cheap AI alone does not improve collective world understanding, while critical appraisal and independent AI learning can.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.