REVIEW 2 cited by
When to Accept Automated Predictions and When to Defer to Human Judgment?
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
When to Accept Automated Predictions and When to Defer to Human Judgment?
read the original abstract
Ensuring the reliability and safety of automated decision-making is crucial. It is well-known that data distribution shifts in machine learning can produce unreliable outcomes. This paper proposes a new approach for measuring the reliability of predictions under distribution shifts. We analyze how the outputs of a trained neural network change using clustering to measure distances between outputs and class centroids. We propose this distance as a metric to evaluate the confidence of predictions under distribution shifts. We assign each prediction to a cluster with centroid representing the mean softmax output for all correct predictions of a given class. We then define a safety threshold for a class as the smallest distance from an incorrect prediction to the given class centroid. We evaluate the approach on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets using a Convolutional Neural Network and a Vision Transformer, respectively. The results show that our approach is consistent across these data sets and network models, and indicate that the proposed metric can offer an efficient way of determining when automated predictions are acceptable and when they should be deferred to human operators given a distribution shift.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Selective Contrastive Learning for Weakly Supervised Affordance Grounding
The full text argues that selective friction (flagging uncertain AI predictions) is less likely to cause unlawful discrimination under UK law than selective abstention (withholding them).
-
Unsupervised Incremental Learning Using Confidence-Based Pseudo-Labels
ICPL generates pseudo-labels by clustering embeddings with KMeans, keeps only confident ones, and uses them to train class-incremental models without human labels, losing about 10 points versus supervised CIL but beat...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.