论文标题

学会在高风险环境中为人类提供建议

Learning to Advise Humans in High-Stakes Settings

论文作者

Wolczynski, Nicholas, Saar-Tsechansky, Maytal, Wang, Tong

论文摘要

在制定最终决策之前,专家决策者(DMS)在高风险AI辅助决策(AIADM)设置之前从AI系统中收到并调和建议。我们确定这些设置的不同属性,这是开发有效地使团队绩效有效的AIADM模型的关键。首先,在调和AI建议与自己的判断相矛盾的AI建议时,DMS会产生和解成本。其次,AIADM设置中的DMS展示了算法自由裁量行为(ADB),即,对于任何给定的决策任务,一种不完美接受或拒绝算法建议的特殊趋势。人类的和解成本和不完善的酌处权行为引入了开发AI系统的需求,(1)(1)选择性地提供建议,(2)利用人类伙伴的ADB最大化团队的决策准确性,同时正规化和解成本,并且(3)本质上是可以解释的。我们指的是开发AI的任务,以在AIADM设置中为人类提供建议,以学习建议,并首先介绍AI辅助团队(AIAT) - 学习框架来解决此任务。我们实例化了我们的框架以开发Teamrules(TR):一种算法,该算法为AIADM设置提供了基于规则的模型和建议。通过利用人类合作伙伴的ADB,对TR进行了优化,以选择性地建议人类,并为给定环境而权衡的和解成本和团队的准确性。对具有各种模拟人类准确性和酌处权的综合和现实基准数据集的评估表明,TR可以强大地改善团队在各个环境中的目标,而不是可解释的基于规则的替代方案。

Expert decision-makers (DMs) in high-stakes AI-assisted decision-making (AIaDM) settings receive and reconcile recommendations from AI systems before making their final decisions. We identify distinct properties of these settings which are key to developing AIaDM models that effectively benefit team performance. First, DMs incur reconciliation costs from exerting decision-making resources (e.g., time and effort) when reconciling AI recommendations that contradict their own judgment. Second, DMs in AIaDM settings exhibit algorithm discretion behavior (ADB), i.e., an idiosyncratic tendency to imperfectly accept or reject algorithmic recommendations for any given decision task. The human's reconciliation costs and imperfect discretion behavior introduce the need to develop AI systems which (1) provide recommendations selectively, (2) leverage the human partner's ADB to maximize the team's decision accuracy while regularizing for reconciliation costs, and (3) are inherently interpretable. We refer to the task of developing AI to advise humans in AIaDM settings as learning to advise and we address this task by first introducing the AI-assisted Team (AIaT)-Learning Framework. We instantiate our framework to develop TeamRules (TR): an algorithm that produces rule-based models and recommendations for AIaDM settings. TR is optimized to selectively advise a human and to trade-off reconciliation costs and team accuracy for a given environment by leveraging the human partner's ADB. Evaluations on synthetic and real-world benchmark datasets with a variety of simulated human accuracy and discretion behaviors show that TR robustly improves the team's objective across settings over interpretable, rule-based alternatives.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源