Machine learning systems are widely used in many high-stakes contexts in which experimental designs for assigning treatments are infeasible. When evaluating decisions is costly, such as investigating fraud cases, or evaluating biopsy decisions, a sample-efficient strategy is needed. However, while existing active learning methods assume humans will always label the instances selected by the machine learning model, in many critical applications, humans may decline to label instances selected by the machine learning model due to reasons such as regulation constraint, domain knowledge, or algorithmic aversion, thus not sample efficient. In this paper, we study the Active Learning with Instance Rejection (ALIR) problem, which considers the human discretion behavior for high-stakes decision making problems. We propose new active learning algorithms under deep bayesian active learning for selective labeling (SEL-BALD) to address the ALIR problem. Our algorithms consider how to acquire information for both the machine learning model and the human discretion model.

Selective labels are a common feature of consequential decision-making applications, referring to the lack of observed outcomes under one of the possible decisions. This paper reports work in progress on learning decision policies in the face of selective labels. The setting considered is both a simplified homogeneous one, disregarding individuals' features to facilitate determination of optimal policies, and an online one, to balance costs incurred in learning with future utility. For maximizing discounted total reward, the optimal policy is shown to be a threshold policy, and the problem is one of optimal stopping. In contrast, for undiscounted infinite-horizon average reward, optimal policies have positive acceptance probability in all states. Future work stemming from these results is discussed.

We explore the problem of learning under selective labels in the context of algorithm-assisted decision making. Selective labels is a pervasive selection bias problem that arises when historical decision making blinds us to the true outcome for certain instances. Examples of this are common in many applications, ranging from predicting recidivism using pre-trial release data to diagnosing patients. In this paper we discuss why selective labels often cannot be effectively tackled by standard methods for adjusting for sample selection bias, even if there are no unobservables. We propose a data augmentation approach that can be used to either leverage expert consistency to mitigate the partial blindness that results from selective labels, or to empirically validate whether learning under such framework may lead to unreliable models prone to systemic discrimination.