REVIEW 3 cited by
Learning to Complement Humans
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
A rising vision for AI in the open world centers on the development of systems that can complement humans for perceptual, diagnostic, and reasoning tasks. To date, systems aimed at complementing the skills of people have employed models trained to be as accurate as possible in isolation. We demonstrate how an end-to-end learning strategy can be harnessed to optimize the combined performance of human-machine teams by considering the distinct abilities of people and machines. The goal is to focus machine learning on problem instances that are difficult for humans, while recognizing instances that are difficult for the machine and seeking human input on them. We demonstrate in two real-world domains (scientific discovery and medical diagnosis) that human-machine teams built via these methods outperform the individual performance of machines and people. We then analyze conditions under which this complementarity is strongest, and which training methods amplify it. Taken together, our work provides the first systematic investigation of how machine learning systems can be trained to complement human reasoning.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Provably Optimal Learning Algorithms for Assistance Games
Decentralized poly-time algorithms achieve (1-1/e)-approximate assistance regret Õ(T^{3/4}) (or Õ(√T) with shared randomness) for online assistance games, and better approximation is intractable.
-
A Model for Imbalanced Label Aggregation: A Focus on Minority-Class Detection
CC-Rasch recovers rare labels better than standard aggregators by letting both annotator competence and item difficulty vary by class, with supporting theory for majority vote under imbalance.
-
RuleEdit: Failure-Guided Human-AI Model Editing with Prospective Impact Preview
Rule-guided mismatch cues raise Human+AI rehab-assessment accuracy by 14% and cut harmful reliance; prospective embedding previews raise local model-edit gains from 11.5% to 36%, with global transfer often regressing.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.