Designing Closed-Loop Models for Task Allocation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19864v1
• Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 13:57:56 GMT
• Title: Designing Closed-Loop Models for Task Allocation
• Authors: Vijay Keswani, L. Elisa Celis, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Matthew Lease
• Abstract summary: We exploit weak prior information on human-task similarity to bootstrap model training. We show that the use of such a weak prior can improve task allocation accuracy, even when human decision-makers are fallible and biased.
• Score: 36.04165658325371
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automatically assigning tasks to people is challenging because human performance can vary across tasks for many reasons. This challenge is further compounded in real-life settings in which no oracle exists to assess the quality of human decisions and task assignments made. Instead, we find ourselves in a "closed" decision-making loop in which the same fallible human decisions we rely on in practice must also be used to guide task allocation. How can imperfect and potentially biased human decisions train an accurate allocation model? Our key insight is to exploit weak prior information on human-task similarity to bootstrap model training. We show that the use of such a weak prior can improve task allocation accuracy, even when human decision-makers are fallible and biased. We present both theoretical analysis and empirical evaluation over synthetic data and a social media toxicity detection task. Results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach.

Related papers

• Towards Objective and Unbiased Decision Assessments with LLM-Enhanced Hierarchical Attention Networks [6.520709313101523]
  This work investigates cognitive bias identification in high-stake decision making process by human experts. We propose bias-aware AI-augmented workflow that surpass human judgment. In our experiments, both the proposed model and the agentic workflow significantly improves on both human judgment and alternative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T10:42:11Z)
• Modeling Boundedly Rational Agents with Latent Inference Budgets [56.24971011281947]
  We introduce a latent inference budget model (L-IBM) that models agents' computational constraints explicitly. L-IBMs make it possible to learn agent models using data from diverse populations of suboptimal actors. We show that L-IBMs match or outperform Boltzmann models of decision-making under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T03:55:51Z)
• 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)
• Can Foundation Models Watch, Talk and Guide You Step by Step to Make a Cake? [62.59699229202307]
  Despite advances in AI, it remains a significant challenge to develop interactive task guidance systems. We created a new multimodal benchmark dataset, Watch, Talk and Guide (WTaG) based on natural interaction between a human user and a human instructor. We leveraged several foundation models to study to what extent these models can be quickly adapted to perceptually enabled task guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T15:13:49Z)
• Assisting Human Decisions in Document Matching [52.79491990823573]
  We devise a proxy matching task that allows us to evaluate which kinds of assistive information improve decision makers' performance. We find that providing black-box model explanations reduces users' accuracy on the matching task. On the other hand, custom methods that are designed to closely attend to some task-specific desiderata are found to be effective in improving user performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T17:45:20Z)
• Robust Planning for Human-Robot Joint Tasks with Explicit Reasoning on Human Mental State [2.8246074016493457]
  We consider the human-aware task planning problem where a human-robot team is given a shared task with a known objective to achieve. Recent approaches tackle it by modeling it as a team of independent, rational agents, where the robot plans for both agents' (shared) tasks. We describe a novel approach to solve such problems, which models and uses execution-time observability conventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T09:21:00Z)
• Investigations of Performance and Bias in Human-AI Teamwork in Hiring [30.046502708053097]
  In AI-assisted decision-making, effective hybrid teamwork (human-AI) is not solely dependent on AI performance alone. We investigate how both a model's predictive performance and bias may transfer to humans in a recommendation-aided decision task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T17:58:07Z)
• Model-agnostic Fits for Understanding Information Seeking Patterns in Humans [0.0]
  In decision making tasks under uncertainty, humans display characteristic biases in seeking, integrating, and acting upon information relevant to the task. Here, we reexamine data from previous carefully designed experiments, collected at scale, that measured and catalogued these biases in aggregate form. We design deep learning models that replicate these biases in aggregate, while also capturing individual variation in behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-09T04:34:58Z)
• Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning as a Model of Human Task Interleaving [60.95424607008241]
  We develop a hierarchical model of supervisory control driven by reinforcement learning. The model reproduces known empirical effects of task interleaving. The results support hierarchical RL as a plausible model of task interleaving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-04T17:53:28Z)

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.