mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AI Oversight and Human Mistakes: Evidence from Centre Court

arXiv 2401.16754 ↗First posted 30 Jan 2024cs.LG cs.CY econ.GNcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Powered by the increasing predictive capabilities of machine learning algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have the potential to overrule human mistakes in many settings. We provide the first field evidence that the use of AI oversight can impact human decision-making. We investigate one of the highest visibility settings where AI oversight has occurred: Hawk-Eye review of umpires in top tennis tournaments. We find that umpires lowered their overall mistake rate after the introduction of Hawk-Eye review, but also that umpires increased the rate at which they called balls in, producing a shift from making Type II errors (calling a ball out when in) to Type I errors (calling a ball in when out). We structurally estimate the psychological costs of being overruled by AI using a model of attention-constrained umpires, and our results suggest that because of these costs, umpires cared 37% more about Type II errors under AI oversight.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2024.

Builds on

3 of 43 references.

References · 3

  1. 2017CheXNet: Radiologist-Level Pneumonia Detection on Chest X-Rays with Deep Learningcited by 459
  2. 2019The Algorithmic Automation Problem: Prediction, Triage, and Human Effortcited by 101
  3. 2021On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisionscited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

2 papers.