mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Learning to Advise Humans in High-Stakes Settings

arXiv 2210.12849 ↗First posted 23 Oct 2022cs.HC cs.AI cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Oct 2022.

Builds on

18 of 50 references.

References · 18

  1. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
  2. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  3. 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 396
  4. 2016European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"cited by 343
  5. 2017Predict Responsibly: Improving Fairness and Accuracy by Learning to Defercited by 228
  6. 2015Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction modelcited by 140
  7. 2020Learning to Complement Humanscited by 123
  8. 2019Human-Centered Tools for Coping with Imperfect Algorithms during Medical Decision-Makingcited by 109
  9. 2021Towards Unbiased and Accurate Deferral to Multiple Expertscited by 71
  10. 2017Learning Certifiably Optimal Rule Lists for Categorical Datacited by 50
  11. 2021Scalable Rule-Based Representation Learning for Interpretable Classificationcited by 40
  12. 2021Human-AI Collaboration with Bandit Feedbackcited by 36
6 more
  1. 2021Role of Human-AI Interaction in Selective Predictioncited by 33
  2. 2022Interpretability, Then What? Editing Machine Learning Models to Reflect Human Knowledge and Valuescited by 25
  3. 2020Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government Contextscited by 22
  4. 2020A deep learning-based framework for segmenting invisible clinical target volumes with estimated uncertainties for post-operative prostate cancer radiotherapycited by 11
  5. 2019Fair-by-design explainable models for prediction of recidivismcited by 8
  6. 2020Augmented Fairness: An Interpretable Model Augmenting Decision-Makers' Fairnesscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.