Sikata Bela Sengupta

Yuzheng Xu, Annya Dahmani, Matthew D. Blanchard et al.

Human-AI complementarity, the idea that combining human and AI judgments can outperform either alone, offers a promising pathway toward robust oversight of advanced AI systems. However, whether human-AI complementarity can be achieved on realistic tasks remains an open question. We investigate this through two approaches: hybridization and two AI assistance methods (top-2 assistance and subtask delegation), evaluated on a multi-domain dataset of 1,886 samples spanning knowledge, factuality, long-context reasoning, and deception detection. We find only modest complementarity gains. Baseline hybridization yields just +0.4 percentage points (pp) over AI alone (69.3\% vs 68.9\%), limited both by a small complementarity region (only 8.9\% of items where AI errs but humans do not) and the inability of confidence-based routing to identify it, since the model's confidence is similarly distributed across correct and incorrect predictions. Applied when AI has low confidence, top-2 assistance increases human accuracy from 28.4\% to 38.3\%, surpassing AI alone (37.7\%) -- but primarily because humans adopt correct AI suggestions, not because they successfully override AI errors. These findings suggest that the primary bottleneck is not human task accuracy per se, but the ability to route decisions to humans when it matters and to design assistance methods that enable humans to catch AI mistakes. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses pinpoint where and why each method succeeds or fails, offering concrete targets for future work. We will release our dataset and code upon request to support progress toward more effective human-AI collaboration for AI oversight.

Eric Eaton, Surbhi Goel, Marcel Hussing et al.

Numerous lines of aim to control $\textit{model disagreement}$ -- the extent to which two machine learning models disagree in their predictions. We adopt a simple and standard notion of model disagreement in real-valued prediction problems, namely the expected squared difference in predictions between two models trained on independent samples, without any coordination of the training processes. We would like to be able to drive disagreement to zero with some natural parameter(s) of the training procedure using analyses that can be applied to existing training methodologies. We develop a simple general technique for proving bounds on independent model disagreement based on $\textit{anchoring}$ to the average of two models within the analysis. We then apply this technique to prove disagreement bounds for four commonly used machine learning algorithms: (1) stacked aggregation over an arbitrary model class (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the number of models $k$ being stacked) (2) gradient boosting (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the number of iterations $k$) (3) neural network training with architecture search (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the size $n$ of the architecture being optimized over) and (4) regression tree training over all regression trees of fixed depth (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the depth $d$ of the tree architecture). For clarity, we work out our initial bounds in the setting of one-dimensional regression with squared error loss -- but then show that all of our results generalize to multi-dimensional regression with any strongly convex loss.

Eric Eaton, Marcel Hussing, Michael Kearns et al.

In traditional reinforcement learning (RL), the learner aims to solve a single objective optimization problem: find the policy that maximizes expected reward. However, in many real-world settings, it is important to optimize over multiple objectives simultaneously. For example, when we are interested in fairness, states might have feature annotations corresponding to multiple (intersecting) demographic groups to whom reward accrues, and our goal might be to maximize the reward of the group receiving the minimal reward. In this work, we consider a multi-objective optimization problem in which each objective is defined by a state-based reweighting of a single scalar reward function. This generalizes the problem of maximizing the reward of the minimum reward group. We provide oracle-efficient algorithms to solve these multi-objective RL problems even when the number of objectives is exponentially large-for tabular MDPs, as well as for large MDPs when the group functions have additional structure. Finally, we experimentally validate our theoretical results and demonstrate applications on a preferential attachment graph MDP.

Eric Eaton, Marcel Hussing, Michael Kearns et al.

Replication of experimental results has been a challenge faced by many scientific disciplines, including the field of machine learning. Recent work on the theory of machine learning has formalized replicability as the demand that an algorithm produce identical outcomes when executed twice on different samples from the same distribution. Provably replicable algorithms are especially interesting for reinforcement learning (RL), where algorithms are known to be unstable in practice. While replicable algorithms exist for tabular RL settings, extending these guarantees to more practical function approximation settings has remained an open problem. In this work, we make progress by developing replicable methods for linear function approximation in RL. We first introduce two efficient algorithms for replicable random design regression and uncentered covariance estimation, each of independent interest. We then leverage these tools to provide the first provably efficient replicable RL algorithms for linear Markov decision processes in both the generative model and episodic settings. Finally, we evaluate our algorithms experimentally and show how they can inspire more consistent neural policies.