Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automating Data Annotation under Strategic Human Agents: Risks and Potential Solutions

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 2405.08027 v4 pith:YP47UJKZ submitted 2024-05-12 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords agentsdatastrategicmodelsamplestheycommondecisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used in social domains to make consequential decisions about humans, they often have the power to reshape data distributions. Humans, as strategic agents, continuously adapt their behaviors in response to the learning system. As populations change dynamically, ML systems may need frequent updates to ensure high performance. However, acquiring high-quality human-annotated samples can be highly challenging and even infeasible in social domains. A common practice to address this issue is using the model itself to annotate unlabeled data samples. This paper investigates the long-term impacts when ML models are retrained with model-annotated samples when they incorporate human strategic responses. We first formalize the interactions between strategic agents and the model and then analyze how they evolve under such dynamic interactions. We find that agents are increasingly likely to receive positive decisions as the model gets retrained, whereas the proportion of agents with positive labels may decrease over time. We thus propose a refined retraining process to stabilize the dynamics. Last, we examine how algorithmic fairness can be affected by these retraining processes and find that enforcing common fairness constraints at every round may not benefit the disadvantaged group in the long run. Experiments on (semi-)synthetic and real data validate the theoretical findings.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Co-DETECT: Collaborative Discovery of Edge Cases in Text Classification

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A mixed-initiative system where LLMs flag low-confidence annotations, cluster them, and propose codebook rules that human experts review and iterate on.

Pith tools