pith. sign in

Investigating Human + Machine Complementarity for Recidivism Predictions

2 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

2 Pith papers citing it
abstract

When might human input help (or not) when assessing risk in fairness domains? Dressel and Farid (2018) asked Mechanical Turk workers to evaluate a subset of defendants in the ProPublica COMPAS data for risk of recidivism, and concluded that COMPAS predictions were no more accurate or fair than predictions made by humans. We delve deeper into this claim to explore differences in human and algorithmic decision making. We construct a Human Risk Score based on the predictions made by multiple Turk workers, characterize the features that determine agreement and disagreement between COMPAS and Human Scores, and construct hybrid Human+Machine models to predict recidivism. Our key finding is that on this data set, Human and COMPAS decision making differed, but not in ways that could be leveraged to significantly improve ground-truth prediction. We present the results of our analyses and suggestions for data collection best practices to leverage complementary strengths of human and machines in the fairness domain.

citation-role summary

background 1

citation-polarity summary

fields

cs.AI 1 cs.LG 1

years

2026 1 2024 1

verdicts

UNVERDICTED 2

roles

background 1

polarities

background 1

representative citing papers

citing papers explorer

Showing 2 of 2 citing papers.