Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2407.07821 v2 pith:ZFK4HRXI submitted 2024-07-10 cs.LG stat.ML

When to Accept Automated Predictions and When to Defer to Human Judgment?

classification cs.LG stat.ML
keywords predictionsclassdistributionwhenapproachautomatedgivennetwork
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Selective Contrastive Learning for Weakly Supervised Affordance Grounding

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    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).

  2. Unsupervised Incremental Learning Using Confidence-Based Pseudo-Labels

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0

    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...