Experimental Evaluation of Algorithm-Assisted Human Decision-Making: Application to Pretrial Public Safety Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02845v4
• Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 17:20:10 GMT
• Title: Experimental Evaluation of Algorithm-Assisted Human Decision-Making: Application to Pretrial Public Safety Assessment
• Authors: Kosuke Imai, Zhichao Jiang, James Greiner, Ryan Halen, Sooahn Shin
• Abstract summary: We develop a statistical methodology for experimentally evaluating the causal impacts of algorithmic recommendations on human decisions. We apply the proposed methodology to preliminary data from the first-ever randomized controlled trial. We find that providing the PSA to the judge has little overall impact on the judge's decisions and subsequent arrestee behavior.
• Score: 0.8749675983608171
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Despite an increasing reliance on fully-automated algorithmic decision-making in our day-to-day lives, human beings still make highly consequential decisions. As frequently seen in business, healthcare, and public policy, recommendations produced by algorithms are provided to human decision-makers to guide their decisions. While there exists a fast-growing literature evaluating the bias and fairness of such algorithmic recommendations, an overlooked question is whether they help humans make better decisions. We develop a statistical methodology for experimentally evaluating the causal impacts of algorithmic recommendations on human decisions. We also show how to examine whether algorithmic recommendations improve the fairness of human decisions and derive the optimal decision rules under various settings. We apply the proposed methodology to preliminary data from the first-ever randomized controlled trial that evaluates the pretrial Public Safety Assessment (PSA) in the criminal justice system. A goal of the PSA is to help judges decide which arrested individuals should be released. On the basis of the preliminary data available, we find that providing the PSA to the judge has little overall impact on the judge's decisions and subsequent arrestee behavior. However, our analysis yields some potentially suggestive evidence that the PSA may help avoid unnecessarily harsh decisions for female arrestees regardless of their risk levels while it encourages the judge to make stricter decisions for male arrestees who are deemed to be risky. In terms of fairness, the PSA appears to increase the gender bias against males while having little effect on any existing racial differences in judges' decision. Finally, we find that the PSA's recommendations might be unnecessarily severe unless the cost of a new crime is sufficiently high.

Related papers

• Does AI help humans make better decisions? A statistical evaluation framework for experimental and observational studies [0.43981305860983716]
  We show how to compare the performance of three alternative decision-making systems--human-alone, human-with-AI, and AI-alone. We find that the risk assessment recommendations do not improve the classification accuracy of a judge's decision to impose cash bail.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T01:04:52Z)
• Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions [18.27590643693167]
  We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the utility-maximizing decision. As a demonstration, we evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve these criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T16:21:37Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Incentive-Theoretic Bayesian Inference for Collaborative Science [59.15962177829337]
  We study hypothesis testing when there is an agent with a private prior about an unknown parameter. We show how the principal can conduct statistical inference that leverages the information that is revealed by an agent's strategic behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T17:59:01Z)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences [2.864550757598007]
  We consider the effect and design of algorithmic recommendations when they affect choices. We show that recommendation-dependent preferences create inefficiencies where the decision-maker is overly responsive to the recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T09:24:47Z)
• The Impact of Algorithmic Risk Assessments on Human Predictions and its Analysis via Crowdsourcing Studies [79.66833203975729]
  We conduct a vignette study in which laypersons are tasked with predicting future re-arrests. Our key findings are as follows: Participants often predict that an offender will be rearrested even when they deem the likelihood of re-arrest to be well below 50%. Judicial decisions, unlike participants' predictions, depend in part on factors that are to the likelihood of re-arrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-03T11:09:10Z)
• Algorithmic risk assessments can alter human decision-making processes in high-stakes government contexts [19.265010348250897]
  We show that risk assessments can alter decision-making processes by increasing the salience of risk as a factor in decisions and that these shifts could exacerbate racial disparities. These results demonstrate that improving human prediction accuracy with algorithms does not necessarily improve human decisions and highlight the need to experimentally test how government algorithms are used by human decision-makers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-09T23:44:45Z)
• A Risk Assessment of a Pretrial Risk Assessment Tool: Tussles, Mitigation Strategies, and Inherent Limits [0.0]
  We perform a risk assessment of the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), a software used in San Francisco and other jurisdictions to assist judges in deciding whether defendants need to be detained before their trial. We articulate benefits and limitations of the PSA solution, as well as suggest mitigation strategies. We then draft the Handoff Tree, a novel algorithmic approach to pretrial justice that accommodates some of the inherent limitations of risk assessment tools by design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T23:56:57Z)
• Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labels [84.12514975093826]
  We propose a sensitivity analysis framework for assessing how assumptions on the noise across groups affect the predictive bias properties of the risk assessment model. Our experimental results on two real world criminal justice data sets demonstrate how even small biases in the observed labels may call into question the conclusions of an analysis based on the noisy outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-30T20:47:00Z)
• A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores [85.12096045419686]
  We study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. We show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-19T07:27:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.