mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Algorithmic Decision-Making Safeguarded by Human Knowledge

arXiv 2211.11028 ↗First posted 20 Nov 2022stat.ML cs.HC cs.LGcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Commercial AI solutions provide analysts and managers with data-driven business intelligence for a wide range of decisions, such as demand forecasting and pricing. However, human analysts may have their own insights and experiences about the decision-making that is at odds with the algorithmic recommendation. In view of such a conflict, we provide a general analytical framework to study the augmentation of algorithmic decisions with human knowledge: the analyst uses the knowledge to set a guardrail by which the algorithmic decision is clipped if the algorithmic output is out of bound, and seems unreasonable. We study the conditions under which the augmentation is beneficial relative to the raw algorithmic decision. We show that when the algorithmic decision is asymptotically optimal with large data, the non-data-driven human guardrail usually provides no benefit. However, we point out three common pitfalls of the algorithmic decision: (1) lack of domain knowledge, such as the market competition, (2) model misspecification, and (3) data contamination. In these cases, even with sufficient data, the augmentation from human knowledge can still improve the performance of the algorithmic decision.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2022.

Builds on

14 of 70 references.

References · 14

  1. 2019CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparisoncited by 1,423
  2. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
  3. 2020Consistent Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expertcited by 271
  4. 2017Predict Responsibly: Improving Fairness and Accuracy by Learning to Defercited by 233
  5. 2020Learning to Complement Humanscited by 124
  6. 2019The Algorithmic Automation Problem: Prediction, Triage, and Human Effortcited by 101
  7. 2018'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage'; Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisionscited by 91
  8. 2021Towards Unbiased and Accurate Deferral to Multiple Expertscited by 72
  9. 2022Human-Algorithm Collaboration: Achieving Complementarity and Avoiding Unfairnesscited by 45
  10. 2017Interpreting Blackbox Models via Model Extractioncited by 44
  11. 2021Human-AI Collaboration with Bandit Feedbackcited by 36
  12. 2020Leveraging Rationales to Improve Human Task Performancecited by 20
2 more
  1. 2021Designing for human-AI complementarity in K-12 educationcited by 19
  2. 2014Fast and Robust Least Squares Estimation in Corrupted Linear Modelscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 1.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance
  2. 2026Language Models Exhibit Inconsistent Biases Towards Algorithmic Agents and Human Experts
  3. 2023In Search of Verifiability: Explanations Rarely Enable Complementary Performance in AI-Advised Decision Making
  4. 2023Learning Complementary Policies for Human-AI Teams
  5. 2026Strategic Decision Support for AI Agents
  6. 2026From Information to Delegation: Mapping Human-AI Financial Decision Making
  7. 2025AI, Help Me Thinkunicodex2014but for Myself: Assisting People in Complex Decision-Making by Providing Different Kinds of Cognitive Support
  8. 2024Towards Optimizing Human-Centric Objectives in AI-Assisted Decision-Making With Offline Reinforcement Learning