Enhancing Selection of Climate Tech Startups with AI -- A Case Study on Integrating Human and AI Evaluations in the ClimaTech Great Global Innovation Challenge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21562v1
• Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 02:23:03 GMT
• Title: Enhancing Selection of Climate Tech Startups with AI -- A Case Study on Integrating Human and AI Evaluations in the ClimaTech Great Global Innovation Challenge
• Authors: Jennifer Turliuk, Alejandro Sevilla, Daniela Gorza, Tod Hynes,
• Abstract summary: ClimaTech competition aimed to identify top climate tech startups.<n>The methodology included three phases: initial AI review, semi-finals judged by humans, and finals using a hybrid weighting.<n>In the finals, with five human judges, weighting shifted to 83.3 percent human and 16.7 percent AI.
• Score: 41.94295877935867
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This case study examines the ClimaTech Great Global Innovation Challenge's approach to selecting climate tech startups by integrating human and AI evaluations. The competition aimed to identify top startups and enhance the accuracy and efficiency of the selection process through a hybrid model. Research shows data-driven approaches help VC firms reduce bias and improve decision-making. Machine learning models have outperformed human investors in deal screening, helping identify high-potential startups. Incorporating AI aimed to ensure more equitable and objective evaluations. The methodology included three phases: initial AI review, semi-finals judged by humans, and finals using a hybrid weighting. In phase one, 57 applications were scored by an AI tool built with StackAI and OpenAI's GPT-4o, and the top 36 advanced. In the semi-finals, human judges, unaware of AI scores, evaluated startups on team quality, market potential, and technological innovation. Each score - human or AI - was weighted equally, resulting in 75 percent human and 25 percent AI influence. In the finals, with five human judges, weighting shifted to 83.3 percent human and 16.7 percent AI. There was a moderate positive correlation between AI and human scores - Spearman's = 0.47 - indicating general alignment with key differences. Notably, the final four startups, selected mainly by humans, were among those rated highest by the AI. This highlights the complementary nature of AI and human judgment. The study shows that hybrid models can streamline and improve startup assessments. The ClimaTech approach offers a strong framework for future competitions by combining human expertise with AI capabilities.

Related papers

• AI Debate Aids Assessment of Controversial Claims [86.47978525513236]
  We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims.<n>In our human study, we find that debate-where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments-consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration.<n>In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T19:01:53Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  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)
• Training Towards Critical Use: Learning to Situate AI Predictions Relative to Human Knowledge [22.21959942886099]
  We introduce a process-oriented notion of appropriate reliance called critical use that centers the human's ability to situate AI predictions against knowledge that is uniquely available to them but unavailable to the AI model. We conduct a randomized online experiment in a complex social decision-making setting: child maltreatment screening. We find that, by providing participants with accelerated, low-stakes opportunities to practice AI-assisted decision-making, novices came to exhibit patterns of disagreement with AI that resemble those of experienced workers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T01:54:31Z)
• Assessing Large Language Models' ability to predict how humans balance self-interest and the interest of others [0.0]
  Generative artificial intelligence (AI) holds enormous potential to revolutionize decision-making processes. By leveraging generative AI, humans can benefit from data-driven insights and predictions. However, for AI to be a reliable assistant for decision-making it is crucial that it is able to capture the balance between self-interest and the interest of others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T13:23:31Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)
• Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making [10.890854857970488]
  Many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user's domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more. Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled. Our results show that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid user decision making, factors such as users' baseline performance relative to the AI and complementary tuning of AI error types significantly impact overall team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T21:39:58Z)
• Uncalibrated Models Can Improve Human-AI Collaboration [10.106324182884068]
  We show that presenting AI models as more confident than they actually are can improve human-AI performance. We first learn a model for how humans incorporate AI advice using data from thousands of human interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-12T04:51:00Z)
• AI in Games: Techniques, Challenges and Opportunities [40.86375378643978]
  Various game AI systems (AIs) have been developed such as Libratus, OpenAI Five and AlphaStar, beating professional human players. In this paper, we survey recent successful game AIs, covering board game AIs, card game AIs, first-person shooting game AIs and real time strategy game AIs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T09:35:53Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• 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)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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.