High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained

The key ingredient to MixTURE's success is automatically learning

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.

We consider the task of learning how to act in collaboration with a human expert based on observational data. The task is motivated by high-stake scenarios such as healthcare and welfare where algorithmic action recommendations are made to a human expert, opening the option of deferring making a recommendation in cases where the human might act better on their own. This task is especially challenging when dealing with observational data, as using such data runs the risk of hidden confounders whose existence can lead to biased and harmful policies. However, unlike standard policy learning, the presence of a human expert can mitigate some of these risks. We build on the work of Mozannar and Sontag (2020) on consistent surrogate loss for learning with the option of deferral to an expert, where they solve a cost-sensitive supervised classification problem. Since we are solving a causal problem, where labels don't exist, we use a causal model to learn costs which are robust to a bounded degree of hidden confounding. We prove that our approach can take advantage of the strengths of both the model and the expert to obtain a better policy than either. We demonstrate our results by conducting experiments on synthetic and semi-synthetic data and show the advantages of our method compared to baselines.

Extending recent advances in Learning from Demonstration (LfD) frameworks to multi-robot settings poses critical challenges such as environment non-stationarity due to partial observability which is detrimental to the applicability of existing methods. Although prior work has shown that enabling communication among agents of a robot team can alleviate such issues, creating inter-agent communication under existing Multi-Agent LfD (MA-LfD) frameworks requires the human expert to provide demonstrations for both environment actions and communication actions, which necessitates an efficient communication strategy on a known message spaces. To address this problem, we propose Mixed-Initiative Multi-Agent Apprenticeship Learning (MixTURE). MixTURE enables robot teams to learn from a human expert-generated data a preferred policy to accomplish a collaborative task, while simultaneously learning emergent inter-agent communication to enhance team coordination. The key ingredient to MixTURE's success is automatically learning a communication policy, enhanced by a mutual-information maximizing reverse model that rationalizes the underlying expert demonstrations without the need for human generated data or an auxiliary reward function. MixTURE outperforms a variety of relevant baselines on diverse data generated by human experts in complex heterogeneous domains. MixTURE is the first MA-LfD framework to enable learning multi-robot collaborative policies directly from real human data, resulting in ~44% less human workload, and ~46% higher usability score.

Decision support systems based on prediction sets have proven to be effective at helping human experts solve classification tasks. Rather than providing single-label predictions, these systems provide sets of label predictions constructed using conformal prediction, namely prediction sets, and ask human experts to predict label values from these sets. In this paper, we first show that the prediction sets constructed using conformal prediction are, in general, suboptimal in terms of average accuracy. Then, we show that the problem of finding the optimal prediction sets under which the human experts achieve the highest average accuracy is NP-hard. More strongly, unless P = NP, we show that the problem is hard to approximate to any factor less than the size of the label set. However, we introduce a simple and efficient greedy algorithm that, for a large class of expert models and non-conformity scores, is guaranteed to find prediction sets that provably offer equal or greater performance than those constructed using conformal prediction. Further, using a simulation study with both synthetic and real expert predictions, we demonstrate that, in practice, our greedy algorithm finds near-optimal prediction sets offering greater performance than conformal prediction.

Design Rationale (DR) for software architecture decisions refers to the reasoning underlying architectural choices, which provides valuable insights into the different phases of the architecting process throughout software development. However, in practice, DR is often inadequately documented due to a lack of motivation and effort from developers. With the recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), their capabilities in text comprehension, reasoning, and generation may enable the generation and recovery of DR for architecture decisions. In this study, we evaluated the performance of LLMs in generating DR for architecture decisions. First, we collected 50 Stack Overflow (SO) posts, 25 GitHub issues, and 25 GitHub discussions related to architecture decisions to construct a dataset of 100 architecture-related problems. Then, we selected five LLMs to generate DR for the architecture decisions with three prompting strategies, including zero-shot, chain of thought (CoT), and LLM-based agents. With the DR provided by human experts as ground truth, the Precision of LLM-generated DR with the three prompting strategies ranges from 0.267 to 0.278, Recall from 0.627 to 0.715, and F1-score from 0.351 to 0.389. Additionally, 64.45% to 69.42% of the arguments of DR not mentioned by human experts are also helpful, 4.12% to 4.87% of the arguments have uncertain correctness, and 1.59% to 3.24% of the arguments are potentially misleading. To further understand the trustworthiness and applicability of LLM-generated DR in practice, we conducted semi-structured interviews with six practitioners. Based on the experimental and interview results, we discussed the pros and cons of the three prompting strategies, the strengths and limitations of LLM-generated DR, and the implications for the practical use of LLM-generated DR.

This is effectively a video in which neurons blink whenever they are active [4, 5].

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that predictive models may benefit from algorithmic triage.