-
Auditing for Human Expertise
Authors:
Rohan Alur,
Loren Laine,
Darrick K. Li,
Manish Raghavan,
Devavrat Shah,
Dennis Shung
Abstract:
High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained human experts. A common source of concern about automation in these settings is that experts may exercise intuition that is difficult to model and/or have access to information (e.g., conversations with a patient) that is simply unavailable to a would-be algorithm. This raises a natural question whether human exper…
▽ More
High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained human experts. A common source of concern about automation in these settings is that experts may exercise intuition that is difficult to model and/or have access to information (e.g., conversations with a patient) that is simply unavailable to a would-be algorithm. This raises a natural question whether human experts add value which could not be captured by an algorithmic predictor. We develop a statistical framework under which we can pose this question as a natural hypothesis test. Indeed, as our framework highlights, detecting human expertise is more subtle than simply comparing the accuracy of expert predictions to those made by a particular learning algorithm. Instead, we propose a simple procedure which tests whether expert predictions are statistically independent from the outcomes of interest after conditioning on the available inputs (`features'). A rejection of our test thus suggests that human experts may add value to any algorithm trained on the available data, and has direct implications for whether human-AI `complementarity' is achievable in a given prediction task. We highlight the utility of our procedure using admissions data collected from the emergency department of a large academic hospital system, where we show that physicians' admit/discharge decisions for patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) appear to be incorporating information that is not available to a standard algorithmic screening tool. This is despite the fact that the screening tool is arguably more accurate than physicians' discretionary decisions, highlighting that -- even absent normative concerns about accountability or interpretability -- accuracy is insufficient to justify algorithmic automation.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2023; v1 submitted 2 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Greedy Algorithm almost Dominates in Smoothed Contextual Bandits
Authors:
Manish Raghavan,
Aleksandrs Slivkins,
Jennifer Wortman Vaughan,
Zhiwei Steven Wu
Abstract:
Online learning algorithms, widely used to power search and content optimization on the web, must balance exploration and exploitation, potentially sacrificing the experience of current users in order to gain information that will lead to better decisions in the future. While necessary in the worst case, explicit exploration has a number of disadvantages compared to the greedy algorithm that alway…
▽ More
Online learning algorithms, widely used to power search and content optimization on the web, must balance exploration and exploitation, potentially sacrificing the experience of current users in order to gain information that will lead to better decisions in the future. While necessary in the worst case, explicit exploration has a number of disadvantages compared to the greedy algorithm that always "exploits" by choosing an action that currently looks optimal. We ask under what conditions inherent diversity in the data makes explicit exploration unnecessary. We build on a recent line of work on the smoothed analysis of the greedy algorithm in the linear contextual bandits model. We improve on prior results to show that a greedy approach almost matches the best possible Bayesian regret rate of any other algorithm on the same problem instance whenever the diversity conditions hold, and that this regret is at most $\tilde O(T^{1/3})$.
△ Less
Submitted 27 December, 2021; v1 submitted 19 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
How Do Classifiers Induce Agents To Invest Effort Strategically?
Authors:
Jon Kleinberg,
Manish Raghavan
Abstract:
Algorithms are often used to produce decision-making rules that classify or evaluate individuals. When these individuals have incentives to be classified a certain way, they may behave strategically to influence their outcomes. We develop a model for how strategic agents can invest effort in order to change the outcomes they receive, and we give a tight characterization of when such agents can be…
▽ More
Algorithms are often used to produce decision-making rules that classify or evaluate individuals. When these individuals have incentives to be classified a certain way, they may behave strategically to influence their outcomes. We develop a model for how strategic agents can invest effort in order to change the outcomes they receive, and we give a tight characterization of when such agents can be incentivized to invest specified forms of effort into improving their outcomes as opposed to "gaming" the classifier. We show that whenever any "reasonable" mechanism can do so, a simple linear mechanism suffices.
△ Less
Submitted 31 July, 2019; v1 submitted 13 July, 2018;
originally announced July 2018.
-
The Externalities of Exploration and How Data Diversity Helps Exploitation
Authors:
Manish Raghavan,
Aleksandrs Slivkins,
Jennifer Wortman Vaughan,
Zhiwei Steven Wu
Abstract:
Online learning algorithms, widely used to power search and content optimization on the web, must balance exploration and exploitation, potentially sacrificing the experience of current users for information that will lead to better decisions in the future. Recently, concerns have been raised about whether the process of exploration could be viewed as unfair, placing too much burden on certain ind…
▽ More
Online learning algorithms, widely used to power search and content optimization on the web, must balance exploration and exploitation, potentially sacrificing the experience of current users for information that will lead to better decisions in the future. Recently, concerns have been raised about whether the process of exploration could be viewed as unfair, placing too much burden on certain individuals or groups. Motivated by these concerns, we initiate the study of the externalities of exploration - the undesirable side effects that the presence of one party may impose on another - under the linear contextual bandits model. We introduce the notion of a group externality, measuring the extent to which the presence of one population of users impacts the rewards of another. We show that this impact can in some cases be negative, and that, in a certain sense, no algorithm can avoid it. We then study externalities at the individual level, interpreting the act of exploration as an externality imposed on the current user of a system by future users. This drives us to ask under what conditions inherent diversity in the data makes explicit exploration unnecessary. We build on a recent line of work on the smoothed analysis of the greedy algorithm that always chooses the action that currently looks optimal, improving on prior results to show that a greedy approach almost matches the best possible Bayesian regret rate of any other algorithm on the same problem instance whenever the diversity conditions hold, and that this regret is at most $\tilde{O}(T^{1/3})$. Returning to group-level effects, we show that under the same conditions, negative group externalities essentially vanish under the greedy algorithm. Together, our results uncover a sharp contrast between the high externalities that exist in the worst case, and the ability to remove all externalities if the data is sufficiently diverse.
△ Less
Submitted 2 July, 2018; v1 submitted 1 June, 2018;
originally announced June 2018.
-
Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Bias
Authors:
Jon Kleinberg,
Manish Raghavan
Abstract:
Over the past two decades, the notion of implicit bias has come to serve as an important component in our understanding of discrimination in activities such as hiring, promotion, and school admissions. Research on implicit bias posits that when people evaluate others -- for example, in a hiring context -- their unconscious biases about membership in particular groups can have an effect on their de…
▽ More
Over the past two decades, the notion of implicit bias has come to serve as an important component in our understanding of discrimination in activities such as hiring, promotion, and school admissions. Research on implicit bias posits that when people evaluate others -- for example, in a hiring context -- their unconscious biases about membership in particular groups can have an effect on their decision-making, even when they have no deliberate intention to discriminate against members of these groups. A growing body of experimental work has pointed to the effect that implicit bias can have in producing adverse outcomes.
Here we propose a theoretical model for studying the effects of implicit bias on selection decisions, and a way of analyzing possible procedural remedies for implicit bias within this model. A canonical situation represented by our model is a hiring setting: a recruiting committee is trying to choose a set of finalists to interview among the applicants for a job, evaluating these applicants based on their future potential, but their estimates of potential are skewed by implicit bias against members of one group. In this model, we show that measures such as the Rooney Rule, a requirement that at least one of the finalists be chosen from the affected group, can not only improve the representation of this affected group, but also lead to higher payoffs in absolute terms for the organization performing the recruiting. However, identifying the conditions under which such measures can lead to improved payoffs involves subtle trade-offs between the extent of the bias and the underlying distribution of applicant characteristics, leading to novel theoretical questions about order statistics in the presence of probabilistic side information.
△ Less
Submitted 4 January, 2018;
originally announced January 2018.
-
On Fairness and Calibration
Authors:
Geoff Pleiss,
Manish Raghavan,
Felix Wu,
Jon Kleinberg,
Kilian Q. Weinberger
Abstract:
The machine learning community has become increasingly concerned with the potential for bias and discrimination in predictive models. This has motivated a growing line of work on what it means for a classification procedure to be "fair." In this paper, we investigate the tension between minimizing error disparity across different population groups while maintaining calibrated probability estimates…
▽ More
The machine learning community has become increasingly concerned with the potential for bias and discrimination in predictive models. This has motivated a growing line of work on what it means for a classification procedure to be "fair." In this paper, we investigate the tension between minimizing error disparity across different population groups while maintaining calibrated probability estimates. We show that calibration is compatible only with a single error constraint (i.e. equal false-negatives rates across groups), and show that any algorithm that satisfies this relaxation is no better than randomizing a percentage of predictions for an existing classifier. These unsettling findings, which extend and generalize existing results, are empirically confirmed on several datasets.
△ Less
Submitted 3 November, 2017; v1 submitted 6 September, 2017;
originally announced September 2017.
-
Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores
Authors:
Jon Kleinberg,
Sendhil Mullainathan,
Manish Raghavan
Abstract:
Recent discussion in the public sphere about algorithmic classification has involved tension between competing notions of what it means for a probabilistic classification to be fair to different groups. We formalize three fairness conditions that lie at the heart of these debates, and we prove that except in highly constrained special cases, there is no method that can satisfy these three conditio…
▽ More
Recent discussion in the public sphere about algorithmic classification has involved tension between competing notions of what it means for a probabilistic classification to be fair to different groups. We formalize three fairness conditions that lie at the heart of these debates, and we prove that except in highly constrained special cases, there is no method that can satisfy these three conditions simultaneously. Moreover, even satisfying all three conditions approximately requires that the data lie in an approximate version of one of the constrained special cases identified by our theorem. These results suggest some of the ways in which key notions of fairness are incompatible with each other, and hence provide a framework for thinking about the trade-offs between them.
△ Less
Submitted 17 November, 2016; v1 submitted 19 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
