Learning Complementary Policies for Human-AI Teams

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02944v2
• Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 12:49:17 GMT
• Title: Learning Complementary Policies for Human-AI Teams
• Authors: Ruijiang Gao, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Maria De-Arteaga,
• Abstract summary: This paper tackles the challenge of human-AI complementarity in decision-making.<n>We develop a robust solution for human-AI collaboration when outcomes are only observed under assigned actions.<n>We show that substantial performance improvements are achievable by routing only a small fraction of instances to human decision-makers.
• Score: 13.371050441794651
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper tackles the critical challenge of human-AI complementarity in decision-making. Departing from the traditional focus on algorithmic performance in favor of performance of the human-AI team, and moving past the framing of collaboration as classification to focus on decision-making tasks, we introduce a novel approach to policy learning. Specifically, we develop a robust solution for human-AI collaboration when outcomes are only observed under assigned actions. We propose a deferral collaboration approach that maximizes decision rewards by exploiting the distinct strengths of humans and AI, strategically allocating instances among them. Critically, our method is robust to misspecifications in both the human behavior and reward models. Leveraging the insight that performance gains stem from divergent human and AI behavioral patterns, we demonstrate, using synthetic and real human responses, that our proposed method significantly outperforms independent human and algorithmic decision-making. Moreover, we show that substantial performance improvements are achievable by routing only a small fraction of instances to human decision-makers, highlighting the potential for efficient and effective human-AI collaboration in complex management settings.

Related papers

• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• Human-AI Collaboration: Trade-offs Between Performance and Preferences [6.521033978692547]
  We show that agents who are more considerate of human actions are preferred over purely performance-maximizing agents.<n>We find evidence for inequality-aversion effects being a driver of human choices, suggesting that people prefer collaborative agents which allow them to meaningfully contribute to the team.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T23:50:14Z)
• The Value of Information in Human-AI Decision-making [23.353778024330165]
  We contribute a decision-theoretic framework for characterizing the value of information.<n>We present a novel explanation technique that adapts SHAP explanations to highlight human-complementing information.<n>We show that our measure of complementary information can be used to identify which AI model will best complement human decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T04:50:42Z)
• Unexploited Information Value in Human-AI Collaboration [23.353778024330165]
  How to improve performance of a human-AI team is often not clear without knowing what particular information and strategies each agent employs. We propose a model based in statistically decision theory to analyze human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T01:34:45Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [52.997197698288936]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. We introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Attaining Human`s Desirable Outcomes in Human-AI Interaction via Structural Causal Games [34.34801907296059]
  In human-AI interaction, a prominent goal is to attain humans desirable outcome with the assistance of AI agents. We employ a theoretical framework called structural causal game (SCG) to formalize the human-AI interactive process. We introduce a strategy referred to as pre-policy intervention on the SCG to steer AI agents towards attaining the humans desirable outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-26T14:42:49Z)
• Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making [47.33241893184721]
  In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole.<n>We propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making.<n>Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T14:34:06Z)
• Towards Optimizing Human-Centric Objectives in AI-Assisted Decision-Making With Offline Reinforcement Learning [10.08973043408929]
  offline reinforcement learning (RL) as a general approach for modeling human-AI decision-making. We show that people interacting with policies optimized for accuracy achieve significantly better accuracy than those interacting with any other type of AI support.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-09T13:30:00Z)
• On the Effect of Contextual Information on Human Delegation Behavior in Human-AI collaboration [3.9253315480927964]
  We study the effects of providing contextual information on human decisions to delegate instances to an AI. We find that providing participants with contextual information significantly improves the human-AI team performance. This research advances the understanding of human-AI interaction in human delegation and provides actionable insights for designing more effective collaborative systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T18:59:47Z)
• Optimising Human-AI Collaboration by Learning Convincing Explanations [62.81395661556852]
  We propose a method for a collaborative system that remains safe by having a human making decisions. Ardent enables efficient and effective decision-making by adapting to individual preferences for explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T16:00:16Z)
• Confounding-Robust Policy Improvement with Human-AI Teams [8.315707564931465]
  We propose a novel solution to address unobserved confounding in human-AI collaboration.<n>Our approach combines domain expertise with AI-driven statistical modeling to account for potentially hidden confounders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T02:39:52Z)
• Towards Effective Human-AI Decision-Making: The Role of Human Learning in Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice [3.595471754135419]
  We show the relationship between learning and appropriate reliance in an experiment with 100 participants. This work provides fundamental concepts for analyzing reliance and derives implications for the effective design of human-AI decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T14:51:53Z)
• PECAN: Leveraging Policy Ensemble for Context-Aware Zero-Shot Human-AI Coordination [52.991211077362586]
  We propose a policy ensemble method to increase the diversity of partners in the population. We then develop a context-aware method enabling the ego agent to analyze and identify the partner's potential policy primitives. In this way, the ego agent is able to learn more universal cooperative behaviors for collaborating with diverse partners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-16T12:14:58Z)
• Blessing from Human-AI Interaction: Super Reinforcement Learning in Confounded Environments [19.944163846660498]
  We introduce the paradigm of super reinforcement learning that takes advantage of Human-AI interaction for data driven sequential decision making. In the decision process with unmeasured confounding, the actions taken by past agents can offer valuable insights into undisclosed information. We develop several super-policy learning algorithms and systematically study their theoretical properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-29T16:03:07Z)
• Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making [46.625616262738404]
  We use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making setting. We focus specifically on anchoring bias, a bias commonly encountered in human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T22:25:41Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)

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.