Distinguishing the Indistinguishable: Human Expertise in Algorithmic Prediction

We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach focuses on the use of human judgment to distinguish inputs which `look the same' to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human/AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often have access to information -- particularly subjective information -- which is not encoded in the algorithm's training data. We use this insight to develop a set of principled algorithms for selectively incorporating human feedback only when it improves the performance of any feasible predictor. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts on average, human judgment can significantly improve algorithmic predictions on specific instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

Reconciling the accuracy-diversity trade-off in recommendations

In recommendation settings, there is an apparent trade-off between the goals of accuracy (to recommend items a user is most likely to want) and diversity (to recommend items representing a range of categories). As such, real-world recommender systems often explicitly incorporate diversity separately from accuracy. This approach, however, leaves a basic question unanswered: Why is there a trade-off in the first place? We show how the trade-off can be explained via a user's consumption constraints -- users typically only consume a few of the items they are recommended. In a stylized model we introduce, objectives that account for this constraint induce diverse recommendations, while objectives that do not account for this constraint induce homogeneous recommendations. This suggests that accuracy and diversity appear misaligned because standard accuracy metrics do not consider consumption constraints. Our model yields precise and interpretable characterizations of diversity in different settings, giving practical insights into the design of diverse recommendations.

Auditing for Human Expertise

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 not captured in 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.

Simplistic Collection and Labeling Practices Limit the Utility of Benchmark Datasets for Twitter Bot Detection

Accurate bot detection is necessary for the safety and integrity of online platforms. It is also crucial for research on the influence of bots in elections, the spread of misinformation, and financial market manipulation. Platforms deploy infrastructure to flag or remove automated accounts, but their tools and data are not publicly available. Thus, the public must rely on third-party bot detection. These tools employ machine learning and often achieve near perfect performance for classification on existing datasets, suggesting bot detection is accurate, reliable and fit for use in downstream applications. We provide evidence that this is not the case and show that high performance is attributable to limitations in dataset collection and labeling rather than sophistication of the tools. Specifically, we show that simple decision rules -- shallow decision trees trained on a small number of features -- achieve near-state-of-the-art performance on most available datasets and that bot detection datasets, even when combined together, do not generalize well to out-of-sample datasets. Our findings reveal that predictions are highly dependent on each dataset's collection and labeling procedures rather than fundamental differences between bots and humans. These results have important implications for both transparency in sampling and labeling procedures and potential biases in research using existing bot detection tools for pre-processing.

Fairness On The Ground: Applying Algorithmic Fairness Approaches to Production Systems

Many technical approaches have been proposed for ensuring that decisions made by machine learning systems are fair, but few of these proposals have been stress-tested in real-world systems. This paper presents an example of one team's approach to the challenge of applying algorithmic fairness approaches to complex production systems within the context of a large technology company. We discuss how we disentangle normative questions of product and policy design (like, "how should the system trade off between different stakeholders' interests and needs?") from empirical questions of system implementation (like, "is the system achieving the desired tradeoff in practice?"). We also present an approach for answering questions of the latter sort, which allows us to measure how machine learning systems and human labelers are making these tradeoffs across different relevant groups. We hope our experience integrating fairness tools and approaches into large-scale and complex production systems will be useful to other practitioners facing similar challenges, and illuminating to academics and researchers looking to better address the needs of practitioners.

Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfare

As algorithms are increasingly applied to screen applicants for high-stakes decisions in employment, lending, and other domains, concerns have been raised about the effects of algorithmic monoculture, in which many decision-makers all rely on the same algorithm. This concern invokes analogies to agriculture, where a monocultural system runs the risk of severe harm from unexpected shocks. Here we show that the dangers of algorithmic monoculture run much deeper, in that monocultural convergence on a single algorithm by a group of decision-making agents, even when the algorithm is more accurate for any one agent in isolation, can reduce the overall quality of the decisions being made by the full collection of agents. Unexpected shocks are therefore not needed to expose the risks of monoculture; it can hurt accuracy even under "normal" operations, and even for algorithms that are more accurate when used by only a single decision-maker. Our results rely on minimal assumptions, and involve the development of a probabilistic framework for analyzing systems that use multiple noisy estimates of a set of alternatives.

Bridging Machine Learning and Mechanism Design towards Algorithmic Fairness

Decision-making systems increasingly orchestrate our world: how to intervene on the algorithmic components to build fair and equitable systems is therefore a question of utmost importance; one that is substantially complicated by the context-dependent nature of fairness and discrimination. Modern systems incorporate machine-learned predictions in broader decision-making pipelines, implicating concerns like constrained allocation and strategic behavior that are typically thought of as mechanism design problems. Although both machine learning and mechanism design have individually developed frameworks for addressing issues of fairness and equity, in some complex decision-making systems, neither framework is individually sufficient. In this paper, we develop the position that building fair decision-making systems requires overcoming these limitations which, we argue, are inherent to the individual frameworks of machine learning and mechanism design. Our ultimate objective is to build an encompassing framework that cohesively bridges the individual frameworks. We begin to lay the ground work towards achieving this goal by comparing the perspective each individual discipline takes on fair decision-making, teasing out the lessons each field has taught and can teach the other, and highlighting application domains that require a strong collaboration between these disciplines.

Greedy Algorithm almost Dominates in Smoothed Contextual Bandits

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 $\tilde O(T^{1/3})$.

Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Employment Screening: Evaluating Claims and Practices

There has been rapidly growing interest in the use of algorithms for employment assessment, especially as a means to address or mitigate bias in hiring. Yet, to date, little is known about how these methods are being used in practice. How are algorithmic assessments built, validated, and examined for bias? In this work, we document and assess the claims and practices of companies offering algorithms for employment assessment, using a methodology that can be applied to evaluate similar applications and issues of bias in other domains. In particular, we identify vendors of algorithmic pre-employment assessments (i.e., algorithms to screen candidates), document what they have disclosed about their development and validation procedures, and evaluate their techniques for detecting and mitigating bias. We find that companies' formulation of "bias" varies, as do their approaches to dealing with it. We also discuss the various choices vendors make regarding data collection and prediction targets, in light of the risks and trade-offs that these choices pose. We consider the implications of these choices and we raise a number of technical and legal considerations.