Screening classifiers are increasingly used to identify qualified candidates in a variety of selection processes. In this context, it has been recently shown that, if a classifier is calibrated, one can identify the smallest set of candidates which contains, in expectation, a desired number of qualified candidates using a threshold decision rule. This lends support to focusing on calibration as the only requirement for screening classifiers. In this paper, we argue that screening policies that use calibrated classifiers may suffer from an understudied type of within-group discrimination -- they may discriminate against qualified members within demographic groups of interest. Further, we argue that this type of discrimination can be avoided if classifiers satisfy within-group monotonicity, a natural monotonicity property within each of the groups. Then, we introduce an efficient post-processing algorithm based on dynamic programming to minimally modify a given calibrated classifier so that its probability estimates satisfy within-group monotonicity. We validate our algorithm using US Census survey data and show that within-group monotonicity can be often achieved at a small cost in terms of prediction granularity and shortlist size.
Automated decision support systems promise to help human experts solve tasks more efficiently and accurately. However, existing systems typically require experts to understand when to cede agency to the system or when to exercise their own agency. Moreover, if the experts develop a misplaced trust in the system, their performance may worsen. In this work, we lift the above requirement and develop automated decision support systems that, by design, do not require experts to understand when to trust them to provably improve their performance. To this end, we focus on multiclass classification tasks and consider automated decision support systems that, for each data sample, use a classifier to recommend a subset of labels to a human expert. We first show that, by looking at the design of such systems from the perspective of conformal prediction, we can ensure that the probability that the recommended subset of labels contains the true label matches almost exactly a target probability value. Then, we identify the set of target probability values under which the human expert is provably better off predicting a label among those in the recommended subset and develop an efficient practical method to find a near-optimal target probability value. Experiments on synthetic and real data demonstrate that our system can help the experts make more accurate predictions and is robust to the accuracy of the classifier it relies on.
Multiple lines of evidence suggest that predictive models may benefit from algorithmic triage. Under algorithmic triage, a predictive model does not predict all instances but instead defers some of them to human experts. However, the interplay between the prediction accuracy of the model and the human experts under algorithmic triage is not well understood. In this work, we start by formally characterizing under which circumstances a predictive model may benefit from algorithmic triage. In doing so, we also demonstrate that models trained for full automation may be suboptimal under triage. Then, given any model and desired level of triage, we show that the optimal triage policy is a deterministic threshold rule in which triage decisions are derived deterministically by thresholding the difference between the model and human errors on a per-instance level. Building upon these results, we introduce a practical gradient-based algorithm that is guaranteed to find a sequence of triage policies and predictive models of increasing performance. Experiments on a wide variety of supervised learning tasks using synthetic and real data from two important applications -- content moderation and scientific discovery -- illustrate our theoretical results and show that the models and triage policies provided by our gradient-based algorithm outperform those provided by several competitive baselines.
Most supervised learning models are trained for full automation. However, their predictions are sometimes worse than those by human experts on some specific instances. Motivated by this empirical observation, our goal is to design classifiers that are optimized to operate under different automation levels. More specifically, we focus on convex margin-based classifiers and first show that the problem is NP-hard. Then, we further show that, for support vector machines, the corresponding objective function can be expressed as the difference of two functions f = g - c, where g is monotone, non-negative and {\gamma}-weakly submodular, and c is non-negative and modular. This representation allows a recently introduced deterministic greedy algorithm, as well as a more efficient randomized variant of the algorithm, to enjoy approximation guarantees at solving the problem. Experiments on synthetic and real-world data from several applications in medical diagnosis illustrate our theoretical findings and demonstrate that, under human assistance, supervised learning models trained to operate under different automation levels can outperform those trained for full automation as well as humans operating alone.
We consider the stochastic shortest path (SSP) problem for succinct Markov decision processes (MDPs), where the MDP consists of a set of variables, and a set of nondeterministic rules that update the variables. First, we show that several examples from the AI literature can be modeled as succinct MDPs. Then we present computational approaches for upper and lower bounds for the SSP problem: (a)~for computing upper bounds, our method is polynomial-time in the implicit description of the MDP; (b)~for lower bounds, we present a polynomial-time (in the size of the implicit description) reduction to quadratic programming. Our approach is applicable even to infinite-state MDPs. Finally, we present experimental results to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on several classical examples from the AI literature.