REVIEW 1 cited by
The Value of Context: Human versus Black Box Evaluators
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
read the original abstract
Machine learning algorithms are now capable of performing evaluations previously conducted by human experts (e.g., medical diagnoses). How should we conceptualize the difference between evaluation by humans and by algorithms, and when should an individual prefer one over the other? We propose a framework to examine one key distinction between the two forms of evaluation: Machine learning algorithms are standardized, fixing a common set of covariates by which to assess all individuals, while human evaluators customize which covariates are acquired to each individual. Our framework defines and analyzes the advantage of this customization -- the value of context -- in environments with high-dimensional data. We show that unless the agent has precise knowledge about the joint distribution of covariates, the benefit of additional covariates generally outweighs the value of context.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Designing Algorithmic Delegates: The Role of Indistinguishability in Human-AI Handoff
Optimal AI delegation reduces to choosing which human categories the machine should retain, and this subset-selection problem is NP-hard in general yet polynomial in separable settings.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.