AI Oversight and Human Mistakes: Evidence from Centre Court
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
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
2 papers.
- 2024The Heterogeneous Productivity Effects of Generative AIcited by 2
- 2025AI Recommendations and Non-instrumental Image Concernscited by 0
- 2025AI Recommendations and Non-instrumental Image Concerns26 Apr 2025
- 2024The Heterogeneous Productivity Effects of Generative AI4 Mar 2024