Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support

Overview

• Machine learning (ML) is increasingly being used to support high-stakes decisions, but there is often a "construct gap" between the decision criteria and what is captured in the data used to train the ML models.
• This can lead to ML models failing to capture important dimensions of the decision-making process, limiting their utility for decision support.
• The authors explore using historical expert decisions as a source of information to help narrow the construct gap, in cases where experts exhibit consistency with each other.
• The paper introduces a methodology to estimate expert consistency and combine expert decisions with observed outcomes to train better predictive models.

Plain English Explanation

Machine learning algorithms are often used to help make important decisions, such as in healthcare or child welfare. However, there can be a disconnect between what the algorithm is actually trying to predict (the "construct of interest") and the data that is available to train the algorithm (the "proxies" or labels).

For example, an algorithm designed to predict risk in child welfare cases might be trained on historical case data and outcomes, but the data may not fully capture all the factors that a human expert would consider when making a decision. As a result, the algorithm may miss important aspects of the decision-making process.

The researchers in this paper propose a way to address this issue by incorporating information from expert human decision-makers, in addition to the observed outcomes. The key insight is that in some cases, experts may make consistent decisions with each other, and this consistency can provide valuable information to help the algorithm better understand the true decision-making process.

The paper outlines a two-step methodology to do this. First, it uses an "influence function-based" approach to estimate the consistency of expert decisions, even when each case is only assessed by a single expert. Second, it introduces a "label amalgamation" approach that allows the algorithm to learn from both the expert decisions and the observed outcomes simultaneously.

Through simulations and real-world data, the researchers show that this approach can lead to better predictive performance than using either the expert decisions or the observed outcomes alone. This suggests that incorporating human expertise can be a valuable way to improve the performance of machine learning systems used for high-stakes decision support.

Technical Explanation

The paper explores the challenge of "construct gap" in the context of using machine learning (ML) to support high-stakes decisions. The construct gap refers to the mismatch between the decision criteria of interest and the proxies or labels used to train the ML models.

To address this, the authors propose leveraging historical expert decisions as an additional source of information, alongside observed outcomes, to train better predictive models. The key insight is that in some cases, experts may exhibit consistency in their decision-making, and this consistency can provide valuable signals to help narrow the construct gap.

The methodology has two core steps:

1. Estimating Expert Consistency: The authors develop an "influence function-based" approach to estimate expert consistency indirectly, even when each case is assessed by a single expert. This allows them to identify instances where experts exhibit high levels of agreement with each other.

2. Label Amalgamation: The authors introduce a "label amalgamation" approach that allows ML models to learn from both the expert decisions and the observed outcomes simultaneously. This enables the models to benefit from the additional information provided by the experts, while still capturing the patterns in the observed data.

The authors evaluate their approach through simulations in a clinical setting and using real-world data from the child welfare domain. The results indicate that the proposed methodology successfully narrows the construct gap, leading to better predictive performance compared to learning from either the expert decisions or the observed outcomes alone.

This work builds on prior research on the challenges of integrating human expertise with machine learning and evaluating the performance of predictive algorithms in high-stakes decision-making contexts.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a well-designed and thoughtful approach to addressing the construct gap issue in using machine learning for high-stakes decision support. The authors' focus on leveraging expert decision-making as a valuable source of information is a promising direction, and the methodology they develop appears to be both theoretically grounded and empirically validated.

That said, the paper does acknowledge several caveats and limitations to their work. For example, the authors note that their approach relies on the assumption that experts exhibit some level of consistency in their decision-making, which may not always be the case. Additionally, the real-world data used in the evaluation is limited to a single domain (child welfare), and further research would be needed to assess the generalizability of the approach to other high-stakes decision-making contexts.

Another potential concern is the extent to which the proposed methodology can truly "narrow the construct gap." While the empirical results suggest improvements in predictive performance, it's unclear whether the models are fully capturing the nuanced decision-making criteria of human experts. There may still be important dimensions that are not adequately represented in the data, either from the experts or the observed outcomes.

Future research could explore ways to further bridge the gap between the construct of interest and the available data, perhaps through more sophisticated techniques for eliciting and incorporating expert knowledge, or by investigating alternative sources of information that could complement the expert decisions and observed outcomes.

Overall, this paper represents an important contribution to the growing body of work on integrating human expertise with machine learning for high-stakes decision support. The authors have demonstrated a thoughtful and rigorous approach to a challenging problem, and their work paves the way for further advancements in this critical area of research.

Conclusion

This paper presents a novel methodology for addressing the "construct gap" that can arise when using machine learning (ML) to support high-stakes decision-making. By incorporating historical expert decisions as an additional source of information, the authors show that it is possible to improve the predictive performance of ML models, compared to using either expert decisions or observed outcomes alone.

The key innovation is the two-step approach of (1) estimating expert consistency using an influence function-based method, and (2) combining the expert decisions and observed outcomes through a label amalgamation process. This allows the ML models to learn from both the experts' decision-making criteria and the patterns in the observed data, helping to narrow the construct gap.

The empirical evaluation, using both simulations and real-world data, demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach in a clinical setting and the child welfare domain. While the authors acknowledge several caveats and limitations, this work represents an important step forward in integrating human expertise with machine learning for high-stakes decision support.

As machine learning continues to be deployed in increasingly consequential domains, approaches like the one presented in this paper will be essential for ensuring that these systems capture the full complexity of human decision-making, and can be reliably used to support and augment human expertise, rather than simply replace it.