Algorithmic Decision-Making Safeguarded by Human Knowledge
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:D6YBYL7Drecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
Commercial AI solutions provide analysts and managers with data-driven business intelligence for a wide range of decisions, such as demand forecasting and pricing. However, human analysts may have their own insights and experiences about the decision-making that is at odds with the algorithmic recommendation. In view of such a conflict, we provide a general analytical framework to study the augmentation of algorithmic decisions with human knowledge: the analyst uses the knowledge to set a guardrail by which the algorithmic decision is clipped if the algorithmic output is out of bound, and seems unreasonable. We study the conditions under which the augmentation is beneficial relative to the raw algorithmic decision. We show that when the algorithmic decision is asymptotically optimal with large data, the non-data-driven human guardrail usually provides no benefit. However, we point out three common pitfalls of the algorithmic decision: (1) lack of domain knowledge, such as the market competition, (2) model misspecification, and (3) data contamination. In these cases, even with sufficient data, the augmentation from human knowledge can still improve the performance of the algorithmic decision.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Simple Solution to Improving Human Supervision of Algorithms: Evidence from Smart Vending
A randomized field experiment finds that limiting downward overrides to two per machine reduces inventory by 1.28% without sales loss by prompting workers to select higher-value SKUs for intervention.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.