A Machine Learning Framework Towards Transparency in Experts' Decision Quality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.11425v1
• Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:50:40 GMT
• Title: A Machine Learning Framework Towards Transparency in Experts' Decision Quality
• Authors: Wanxue Dong (1), Maytal Saar-Tsechansky (1), Tomer Geva (2) ((1) The Department of Information, Risk and Operations Management, The University of Texas at Austin, (2) Coller School of Management Tel-Aviv University)
• Abstract summary: In many important settings, transparency in experts' decision quality is rarely possible because ground truth data for evaluating the experts' decisions is costly and available only for a limited set of decisions. We first formulate the problem of estimating experts' decision accuracy in this setting and then develop a machine-learning-based framework to address it. Our method effectively leverages both abundant historical data on workers' past decisions, and scarce decision instances with ground truth information.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Expert workers make non-trivial decisions with significant implications. Experts' decision accuracy is thus a fundamental aspect of their judgment quality, key to both management and consumers of experts' services. Yet, in many important settings, transparency in experts' decision quality is rarely possible because ground truth data for evaluating the experts' decisions is costly and available only for a limited set of decisions. Furthermore, different experts typically handle exclusive sets of decisions, and thus prior solutions that rely on the aggregation of multiple experts' decisions for the same instance are inapplicable. We first formulate the problem of estimating experts' decision accuracy in this setting and then develop a machine-learning-based framework to address it. Our method effectively leverages both abundant historical data on workers' past decisions, and scarce decision instances with ground truth information. We conduct extensive empirical evaluations of our method's performance relative to alternatives using both semi-synthetic data based on publicly available datasets, and purposefully compiled dataset on real workers' decisions. The results show that our approach is superior to existing alternatives across diverse settings, including different data domains, experts' qualities, and the amount of ground truth data. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to posit and address the problem of estimating experts' decision accuracies from historical data with scarcely available ground truth, and it is the first to offer comprehensive results for this problem setting, establishing the performances that can be achieved across settings, as well as the state-of-the-art performance on which future work can build.

Related papers

• Defining Expertise: Applications to Treatment Effect Estimation [58.7977683502207]
  We argue that expertise - particularly the type of expertise the decision-makers of a domain are likely to have - can be informative in designing and selecting methods for treatment effect estimation. We define two types of expertise, predictive and prognostic, and demonstrate empirically that: (i) the prominent type of expertise in a domain significantly influences the performance of different methods in treatment effect estimation, and (ii) it is possible to predict the type of expertise present in a dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T17:30:49Z)
• 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)
• Rational Decision-Making Agent with Internalized Utility Judgment [91.80700126895927]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable advancements and have attracted significant efforts to develop LLMs into agents capable of executing intricate multi-step decision-making tasks beyond traditional NLP applications. This paper proposes RadAgent, which fosters the development of its rationality through an iterative framework involving Experience Exploration and Utility Learning. Experimental results on the ToolBench dataset demonstrate RadAgent's superiority over baselines, achieving over 10% improvement in Pass Rate on diverse tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-24T03:11:45Z)
• On solving decision and risk management problems subject to uncertainty [91.3755431537592]
  Uncertainty is a pervasive challenge in decision and risk management. This paper develops a systematic understanding of such strategies, determine their range of application, and develop a framework to better employ them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T19:16:23Z)
• On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions [3.4069627091757178]
  We show that the inclusion of a biased human decision-maker can revert common relationships between the structure of the algorithm and the qualities of resulting decisions. In the lab experiment, we demonstrate how predictions informed by gender-specific information can reduce average gender disparities in decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-28T17:24:45Z)
• Dealing with Expert Bias in Collective Decision-Making [4.588028371034406]
  We propose a new algorithmic approach based on contextual multi-armed bandit problems (CMAB) to identify and counteract biased expertises. Our novel CMAB-inspired approach achieves a higher final performance and does so while converging more rapidly than previous adaptive algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T10:17:37Z)
• Decision Rule Elicitation for Domain Adaptation [93.02675868486932]
  Human-in-the-loop machine learning is widely used in artificial intelligence (AI) to elicit labels from experts. In this work, we allow experts to additionally produce decision rules describing their decision-making. We show that decision rule elicitation improves domain adaptation of the algorithm and helps to propagate expert's knowledge to the AI model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-23T08:07:22Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
• Autoencoders for strategic decision support [5.922780668675565]
  We introduce and extend the use of autoencoders to provide strategically relevant granular feedback. A first experiment indicates that experts are inconsistent in their decision making, highlighting the need for strategic decision support. Our study confirms several principal weaknesses of human decision-making and stresses the importance of synergy between a model and humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-03T12:54:06Z)

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.