It is shown that a key factor is the error correlation structure between human and AI predictions, and when the AI's prediction errors are negatively correlated with those of the human, the decision maker can construct robust strategies which guarantee improvements in expected utility.
Abstract
Machine learning models are often intended to augment rather than replace human decision makers, by providing information that is complementary to human judgement. Yet, in practice, human decision makers routinely fail to realize such complementary gains, even when models provide useful signal. In this work, we study how asymmetric information about the quality of information available to a human decision maker vs. an AI impacts the ability of a decision maker to extract complementary value from AI predictions. We show that a key factor is the error correlation structure between human and AI predictions. In particular, when the AI's prediction errors are \textit{negatively correlated} with those of the human, the decision maker can construct robust strategies which guarantee improvements in expected utility. We empirically investigate whether these conditions for complementarity arise in practice, using real-world forecasting benchmarks.
This work develops an inverse optimization approach to jointly learn the decision-maker's preferences and the decision rules governing their choices, which leads to better predictions and greater flexibility in capturing and replicating expert decision making.
Anurag Holani, Rishabh Gupta, J. Wassick et al.· 1 citation
We consider optimization applications with unknown parameters where the decision maker believes that the optimal value of the nominal problem-the optimization problem they would have solved if the true parameters were known-is unlikely to be large. This belief derives from information that humans have that is not captured in datasets, obtained from domain knowledge and interacting with the physical world. We propose an approach to evaluating policies that provides tighter performance guarantees if the decision maker's belief happens to be correct. Our main result shows that if computing a policy's worst-case performance is a convex program, then the value of human expertise-the maximum improvement in performance guarantees that can be obtained from the belief about the nominal problem-is equal to the minimax gap of a max-min problem. We illustrate our developments in assortment optimization and shortest path problems.
This work develops a six step BBN framework and illustrates it to model customer intention to consult a doctor in an alternative healthcare system and reveals that while self efficacy appears to be a major factor, its actual causal impact is small.
Kumar Rahul, Shovan Chowdhury Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, Kerala et al.· 0 citations
A replicable methodology is introduced, findings across two architecturally distinct LLMs from different developers are extended, and it is demonstrated that deliberate prompt design meaningfully reduces AI decision bias.
Jing-Jie Su, Yan Lang, Kay-Yut Chen· Review of Behavioral Economi...· 0 citations
This work proposes a flexible Bayesian framework that significantly outperforms standalone ResNet, human, and LLM-based approaches, demonstrating the practical benefits of fusing these heterogeneous signal sources.
Pengyue Liu, Hailong Sun, C. Teo et al.· 0 citations
This brief argues that market-based governance fails: individual property rights over data cannot address AI’s harms and benefits, because machine learning is fundamentally about data externalities, and because platform network effects are artificially maintained.
Maximilian Kasy· Journal of Economic Interact...· 0 citations