When to Accept Automated Predictions and When to Defer to Human Judgment?
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper discusses the important question of when to rely on automated predictions versus deferring to human judgment.
- The authors explore factors that should be considered when deciding whether to accept automated predictions or to rely on human decision-making.
- The paper examines concepts such as distribution shifts, model robustness, and uncertainty quantification, and how they relate to the challenge of determining when to trust automated systems.
- The research presented in this paper has implications for the responsible deployment of AI systems in high-stakes real-world applications.
Plain English Explanation
As artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems become increasingly sophisticated, there is a growing need to understand when it is appropriate to rely on their automated predictions versus deferring to human judgment. The authors of this paper tackle this important question, exploring the various factors that should be considered when making this decision.
One key issue the paper addresses is the challenge of distribution shifts. When an AI system is trained on one set of data, it may perform well on that data, but struggle when faced with new, unfamiliar data. This can lead to unreliable predictions, and the paper discusses ways to quantify these distribution shifts and uncertainties to enhance the robustness of the system.
The paper also explores the concept of confident predictions, which is critical for determining when to trust an automated system. If an AI model can provide reliable estimates of its own uncertainty, it becomes easier to decide whether to accept its predictions or defer to human judgment.
Additionally, the paper discusses the likelihood of misclassification for different types of predictions, as some classes of predictions may be more reliable than others. Understanding these nuances can help guide the decision-making process.
Ultimately, the goal of this research is to provide a framework for safely deploying AI systems in high-stakes real-world applications, where the consequences of relying on an unreliable prediction can be severe. By carefully considering the various factors at play, we can make more informed decisions about when to trust automated predictions and when to defer to human judgment.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the challenge of determining when to accept automated predictions and when to defer to human judgment. The authors explore several key concepts that are critical to this decision-making process.
One of the central issues addressed is the problem of distribution shifts. The authors explain that when an AI system is trained on a specific dataset, it may perform well on that data, but struggle when faced with new, unfamiliar data. This can lead to unreliable predictions, and the paper discusses methods for quantifying these distribution shifts and uncertainties to enhance the robustness of the system.
The paper also delves into the concept of confident predictions, which is crucial for determining when to trust an automated system. If an AI model can provide reliable estimates of its own uncertainty, it becomes easier to decide whether to accept its predictions or defer to human judgment.
Furthermore, the authors examine the likelihood of misclassification for different types of predictions, as some classes of predictions may be more reliable than others. Understanding these nuances can help guide the decision-making process.
The overall aim of this research is to provide a framework for safely deploying AI systems in high-stakes real-world applications, where the consequences of relying on an unreliable prediction can be severe. By carefully considering the various factors at play, the authors hope to help researchers and practitioners make more informed decisions about when to trust automated predictions and when to defer to human judgment.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of the factors that should be considered when deciding whether to accept automated predictions or rely on human judgment. The authors' exploration of concepts like distribution shifts, uncertainty quantification, and misclassification likelihood provides a solid framework for understanding the challenges involved.
One potential caveat is that the paper focuses primarily on high-stakes real-world applications, such as healthcare or autonomous driving. While these are undoubtedly important domains, the principles discussed may also have relevance for a broader range of applications where automation and human judgment intersect. The authors could have discussed the potential for this framework to be adapted to other contexts.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the practical implementation of the proposed approaches. While the theoretical underpinnings are well-established, more guidance on how to operationalize these concepts in real-world systems could be valuable for practitioners.
Another area for further research could be the integration of human-in-the-loop approaches, where automated predictions and human judgment are seamlessly combined to leverage the strengths of both. The paper touches on this idea, but a more detailed exploration of the challenges and best practices in this area could be beneficial.
Overall, the paper presents a thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis of a critical issue in the responsible deployment of AI systems. By encouraging readers to think critically about the factors that should inform the decision to trust automated predictions or defer to human judgment, the authors make a valuable contribution to the field.
Conclusion
This paper provides a comprehensive examination of the factors that should be considered when deciding whether to accept automated predictions or defer to human judgment. The authors explore key concepts such as distribution shifts, uncertainty quantification, and misclassification likelihood, offering a robust framework for understanding the challenges involved in this decision-making process.
The insights presented in this research have important implications for the responsible deployment of AI systems in high-stakes real-world applications, where the consequences of relying on unreliable predictions can be severe. By carefully considering the various factors at play, researchers and practitioners can make more informed decisions about when to trust automated predictions and when to defer to human judgment, ultimately contributing to the safe and effective use of these powerful technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
When to Accept Automated Predictions and When to Defer to Human Judgment?
Daniel Sikar, Artur Garcez, Tillman Weyde, Robin Bloomfield, Kaleem Peeroo
Ensuring the reliability and safety of automated decision-making is crucial. It is well-known that data distribution shifts in machine learning can produce unreliable outcomes. This paper proposes a new approach for measuring the reliability of predictions under distribution shifts. We analyze how the outputs of a trained neural network change using clustering to measure distances between outputs and class centroids. We propose this distance as a metric to evaluate the confidence of predictions under distribution shifts. We assign each prediction to a cluster with centroid representing the mean softmax output for all correct predictions of a given class. We then define a safety threshold for a class as the smallest distance from an incorrect prediction to the given class centroid. We evaluate the approach on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets using a Convolutional Neural Network and a Vision Transformer, respectively. The results show that our approach is consistent across these data sets and network models, and indicate that the proposed metric can offer an efficient way of determining when automated predictions are acceptable and when they should be deferred to human operators given a distribution shift.
Read more8/14/2024
0
Evaluation of autonomous systems under data distribution shifts
Daniel Sikar, Artur Garcez
We posit that data can only be safe to use up to a certain threshold of the data distribution shift, after which control must be relinquished by the autonomous system and operation halted or handed to a human operator. With the use of a computer vision toy example we demonstrate that network predictive accuracy is impacted by data distribution shifts and propose distance metrics between training and testing data to define safe operation limits within said shifts. We conclude that beyond an empirically obtained threshold of the data distribution shift, it is unreasonable to expect network predictive accuracy not to degrade
Read more7/1/2024
0
Quantifying Distribution Shifts and Uncertainties for Enhanced Model Robustness in Machine Learning Applications
Vegard Flovik
Distribution shifts, where statistical properties differ between training and test datasets, present a significant challenge in real-world machine learning applications where they directly impact model generalization and robustness. In this study, we explore model adaptation and generalization by utilizing synthetic data to systematically address distributional disparities. Our investigation aims to identify the prerequisites for successful model adaptation across diverse data distributions, while quantifying the associated uncertainties. Specifically, we generate synthetic data using the Van der Waals equation for gases and employ quantitative measures such as Kullback-Leibler divergence, Jensen-Shannon distance, and Mahalanobis distance to assess data similarity. These metrics en able us to evaluate both model accuracy and quantify the associated uncertainty in predictions arising from data distribution shifts. Our findings suggest that utilizing statistical measures, such as the Mahalanobis distance, to determine whether model predictions fall within the low-error interpolation regime or the high-error extrapolation regime provides a complementary method for assessing distribution shift and model uncertainty. These insights hold significant value for enhancing model robustness and generalization, essential for the successful deployment of machine learning applications in real-world scenarios.
Read more5/6/2024
⛏️
0
Robust Validation: Confident Predictions Even When Distributions Shift
Maxime Cauchois, Suyash Gupta, Alnur Ali, John C. Duchi
While the traditional viewpoint in machine learning and statistics assumes training and testing samples come from the same population, practice belies this fiction. One strategy -- coming from robust statistics and optimization -- is thus to build a model robust to distributional perturbations. In this paper, we take a different approach to describe procedures for robust predictive inference, where a model provides uncertainty estimates on its predictions rather than point predictions. We present a method that produces prediction sets (almost exactly) giving the right coverage level for any test distribution in an $f$-divergence ball around the training population. The method, based on conformal inference, achieves (nearly) valid coverage in finite samples, under only the condition that the training data be exchangeable. An essential component of our methodology is to estimate the amount of expected future data shift and build robustness to it; we develop estimators and prove their consistency for protection and validity of uncertainty estimates under shifts. By experimenting on several large-scale benchmark datasets, including Recht et al.'s CIFAR-v4 and ImageNet-V2 datasets, we provide complementary empirical results that highlight the importance of robust predictive validity.
Read more7/8/2024