Maytal Saar-Tsechansky

Maria De-Arteaga, Stefan Feuerriegel, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky

The extensive adoption of business analytics (BA) has brought financial gains and increased efficiencies. However, these advances have simultaneously drawn attention to rising legal and ethical challenges when BA inform decisions with fairness implications. As a response to these concerns, the emerging study of algorithmic fairness deals with algorithmic outputs that may result in disparate outcomes or other forms of injustices for subgroups of the population, especially those who have been historically marginalized. Fairness is relevant on the basis of legal compliance, social responsibility, and utility; if not adequately and systematically addressed, unfair BA systems may lead to societal harms and may also threaten an organization's own survival, its competitiveness, and overall performance. This paper offers a forward-looking, BA-focused review of algorithmic fairness. We first review the state-of-the-art research on sources and measures of bias, as well as bias mitigation algorithms. We then provide a detailed discussion of the utility-fairness relationship, emphasizing that the frequent assumption of a trade-off between these two constructs is often mistaken or short-sighted. Finally, we chart a path forward by identifying opportunities for business scholars to address impactful, open challenges that are key to the effective and responsible deployment of BA.

Mathias Kraus, Stefan Feuerriegel, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky

Problem Definition. Increasing costs of healthcare highlight the importance of effective disease prevention. However, decision models for allocating preventive care are lacking. Methodology/Results. In this paper, we develop a data-driven decision model for determining a cost-effective allocation of preventive treatments to patients at risk. Specifically, we combine counterfactual inference, machine learning, and optimization techniques to build a scalable decision model that can exploit high-dimensional medical data, such as the data found in modern electronic health records. Our decision model is evaluated based on electronic health records from 89,191 prediabetic patients. We compare the allocation of preventive treatments (metformin) prescribed by our data-driven decision model with that of current practice. We find that if our approach is applied to the U.S. population, it can yield annual savings of $1.1 billion. Finally, we analyze the cost-effectiveness under varying budget levels. Managerial Implications. Our work supports decision-making in health management, with the goal of achieving effective disease prevention at lower costs. Importantly, our decision model is generic and can thus be used for effective allocation of preventive care for other preventable diseases.

Ruijiang Gao, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Maria De-Arteaga

This paper tackles the critical challenge of human-AI complementarity in decision-making. Departing from the traditional focus on algorithmic performance in favor of performance of the human-AI team, and moving past the framing of collaboration as classification to focus on decision-making tasks, we introduce a novel approach to policy learning. Specifically, we develop a robust solution for human-AI collaboration when outcomes are only observed under assigned actions. We propose a deferral collaboration approach that maximizes decision rewards by exploiting the distinct strengths of humans and AI, strategically allocating instances among them. Critically, our method is robust to misspecifications in both the human behavior and reward models. Leveraging the insight that performance gains stem from divergent human and AI behavioral patterns, we demonstrate, using synthetic and real human responses, that our proposed method significantly outperforms independent human and algorithmic decision-making. Moreover, we show that substantial performance improvements are achievable by routing only a small fraction of instances to human decision-makers, highlighting the potential for efficient and effective human-AI collaboration in complex management settings.

Yunyi Li, Maria De-Arteaga, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky

An increased awareness concerning risks of algorithmic bias has driven a surge of efforts around bias mitigation strategies. A vast majority of the proposed approaches fall under one of two categories: (1) imposing algorithmic fairness constraints on predictive models, and (2) collecting additional training samples. Most recently and at the intersection of these two categories, methods that propose active learning under fairness constraints have been developed. However, proposed bias mitigation strategies typically overlook the bias presented in the observed labels. In this work, we study fairness considerations of active data collection strategies in the presence of label bias. We first present an overview of different types of label bias in the context of supervised learning systems. We then empirically show that, when overlooking label bias, collecting more data can aggravate bias, and imposing fairness constraints that rely on the observed labels in the data collection process may not address the problem. Our results illustrate the unintended consequences of deploying a model that attempts to mitigate a single type of bias while neglecting others, emphasizing the importance of explicitly differentiating between the types of bias that fairness-aware algorithms aim to address, and highlighting the risks of neglecting label bias during data collection.

Nicholas Wolczynski, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Tong Wang

Expert decision-makers (DMs) in high-stakes AI-assisted decision-making (AIaDM) settings receive and reconcile recommendations from AI systems before making their final decisions. We identify distinct properties of these settings which are key to developing AIaDM models that effectively benefit team performance. First, DMs incur reconciliation costs from exerting decision-making resources (e.g., time and effort) when reconciling AI recommendations that contradict their own judgment. Second, DMs in AIaDM settings exhibit algorithm discretion behavior (ADB), i.e., an idiosyncratic tendency to imperfectly accept or reject algorithmic recommendations for any given decision task. The human's reconciliation costs and imperfect discretion behavior introduce the need to develop AI systems which (1) provide recommendations selectively, (2) leverage the human partner's ADB to maximize the team's decision accuracy while regularizing for reconciliation costs, and (3) are inherently interpretable. We refer to the task of developing AI to advise humans in AIaDM settings as learning to advise and we address this task by first introducing the AI-assisted Team (AIaT)-Learning Framework. We instantiate our framework to develop TeamRules (TR): an algorithm that produces rule-based models and recommendations for AIaDM settings. TR is optimized to selectively advise a human and to trade-off reconciliation costs and team accuracy for a given environment by leveraging the human partner's ADB. Evaluations on synthetic and real-world benchmark datasets with a variety of simulated human accuracy and discretion behaviors show that TR robustly improves the team's objective across settings over interpretable, rule-based alternatives.

Yunyi Li, Maria De-Arteaga, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky

Growing concerns regarding algorithmic fairness have led to a surge in methodologies to mitigate algorithmic bias. However, such methodologies largely assume that observed labels in training data are correct. This is problematic because bias in labels is pervasive across important domains, including healthcare, hiring, and content moderation. In particular, human-generated labels are prone to encoding societal biases. While the presence of labeling bias has been discussed conceptually, there is a lack of methodologies to address this problem. We propose a pruning method -- Decoupled Confident Learning (DeCoLe) -- specifically designed to mitigate label bias. After illustrating its performance on a synthetic dataset, we apply DeCoLe in the context of hate speech detection, where label bias has been recognized as an important challenge, and show that it successfully identifies biased labels and outperforms competing approaches.

Yunyi Li, Maria De-Arteaga, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky

Reliable data is a cornerstone of modern organizational systems. A notable data integrity challenge stems from label bias, which refers to systematic errors in a label, a covariate that is central to a quantitative analysis, such that its quality differs across social groups. This type of bias has been conceptually and empirically explored and is widely recognized as a pressing issue across critical domains. However, effective methodologies for addressing it remain scarce. In this work, we propose Decoupled Confident Learning (DeCoLe), a principled machine learning based framework specifically designed to detect mislabeled instances in datasets affected by label bias, enabling bias aware mislabelling detection and facilitating data quality improvement. We theoretically justify the effectiveness of DeCoLe and evaluate its performance in the impactful context of hate speech detection, a domain where label bias is a well documented challenge. Empirical results demonstrate that DeCoLe excels at bias aware mislabeling detection, consistently outperforming alternative approaches for label error detection. Our work identifies and addresses the challenge of bias aware mislabeling detection and offers guidance on how DeCoLe can be integrated into organizational data management practices as a powerful tool to enhance data reliability.

Nicholas Wolczynski, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Tong Wang

Despite advances in AI's performance and interpretability, AI advisors can undermine experts' decisions and increase the time and effort experts must invest to make decisions. Consequently, AI systems deployed in high-stakes settings often fail to consistently add value across experts and organizations and can even diminish the value that experts alone provide. Beyond harm in specific domains, such outcomes impede progress in research and practice, underscoring the need to understand when and why different AI advisors add or diminish value. To bridge this gap, we stress the importance of assessing the value AI advice brings to real-world contexts when designing and evaluating AI advisors. Building on this perspective, we characterize key pillars -- pathways through which AI advice impacts value -- and develop a framework that incorporates these pillars to create reliable, personalized, and value-adding advisors. Our results highlight the need for value-driven development of AI advisors that advise selectively, are tailored to experts' unique behaviors, and are optimized for context-specific trade-offs between decision improvements and advising costs. They also reveal how the lack of inclusion of these pillars in the design of AI advising systems may be contributing to the failures observed in practical applications.

Wanxue Dong, Maria De-Arteaga, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky

Biased human decisions have consequential impacts across various domains, yielding unfair treatment of individuals and resulting in suboptimal outcomes for organizations and society. In recognition of this fact, organizations regularly design and deploy interventions aimed at mitigating these biases. However, measuring human decision biases remains an important but elusive task. Organizations are frequently concerned with mistaken decisions disproportionately affecting one group. In practice, however, this is typically not possible to assess due to the scarcity of a gold standard: a label that indicates what the correct decision would have been. In this work, we propose a machine learning-based framework to assess bias in human-generated decisions when gold standard labels are scarce. We provide theoretical guarantees and empirical evidence demonstrating the superiority of our method over existing alternatives. This proposed methodology establishes a foundation for transparency in human decision-making, carrying substantial implications for managerial duties, and offering potential for alleviating algorithmic biases when human decisions are used as labels to train algorithms.

Wanxue Dong, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Tomer Geva

Expert workers make non-trivial decisions with significant implications. Experts' decision accuracy is thus a fundamental aspect of their judgment quality, key to both management and consumers of experts' services. Yet, in many important settings, transparency in experts' decision quality is rarely possible because ground truth data for evaluating the experts' decisions is costly and available only for a limited set of decisions. Furthermore, different experts typically handle exclusive sets of decisions, and thus prior solutions that rely on the aggregation of multiple experts' decisions for the same instance are inapplicable. We first formulate the problem of estimating experts' decision accuracy in this setting and then develop a machine-learning-based framework to address it. Our method effectively leverages both abundant historical data on workers' past decisions, and scarce decision instances with ground truth information. We conduct extensive empirical evaluations of our method's performance relative to alternatives using both semi-synthetic data based on publicly available datasets, and purposefully compiled dataset on real workers' decisions. The results show that our approach is superior to existing alternatives across diverse settings, including different data domains, experts' qualities, and the amount of ground truth data. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to posit and address the problem of estimating experts' decision accuracies from historical data with scarcely available ground truth, and it is the first to offer comprehensive results for this problem setting, establishing the performances that can be achieved across settings, as well as the state-of-the-art performance on which future work can build.

Ruijiang Gao, Maytal Saar-tsechansky

Conventional active learning algorithms assume a single labeler that produces noiseless label at a given, fixed cost, and aim to achieve the best generalization performance for given classifier under a budget constraint. However, in many real settings, different labelers have different labeling costs and can yield different labeling accuracies. Moreover, a given labeler may exhibit different labeling accuracies for different instances. This setting can be referred to as active learning with diverse labelers with varying costs and accuracies, and it arises in many important real settings. It is therefore beneficial to understand how to effectively trade-off between labeling accuracy for different instances, labeling costs, as well as the informativeness of training instances, so as to achieve the best generalization performance at the lowest labeling cost. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm for selecting instances, labelers (and their corresponding costs and labeling accuracies), that employs generalization bound of learning with label noise to select informative instances and labelers so as to achieve higher generalization accuracy at a lower cost. Our proposed algorithm demonstrates state-of-the-art performance on five UCI and a real crowdsourcing dataset.

Ruijiang Gao, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Maria De-Arteaga et al.

Human-machine complementarity is important when neither the algorithm nor the human yield dominant performance across all instances in a given domain. Most research on algorithmic decision-making solely centers on the algorithm's performance, while recent work that explores human-machine collaboration has framed the decision-making problems as classification tasks. In this paper, we first propose and then develop a solution for a novel human-machine collaboration problem in a bandit feedback setting. Our solution aims to exploit the human-machine complementarity to maximize decision rewards. We then extend our approach to settings with multiple human decision makers. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methods using both synthetic and real human responses, and find that our methods outperform both the algorithm and the human when they each make decisions on their own. We also show how personalized routing in the presence of multiple human decision-makers can further improve the human-machine team performance.

Tong Wang, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky

We propose a model-agnostic approach for mitigating the prediction bias of a black-box decision-maker, and in particular, a human decision-maker. Our method detects in the feature space where the black-box decision-maker is biased and replaces it with a few short decision rules, acting as a "fair surrogate". The rule-based surrogate model is trained under two objectives, predictive performance and fairness. Our model focuses on a setting that is common in practice but distinct from other literature on fairness. We only have black-box access to the model, and only a limited set of true labels can be queried under a budget constraint. We formulate a multi-objective optimization for building a surrogate model, where we simultaneously optimize for both predictive performance and bias. To train the model, we propose a novel training algorithm that combines a nondominated sorting genetic algorithm with active learning. We test our model on public datasets where we simulate various biased "black-box" classifiers (decision-makers) and apply our approach for interpretable augmented fairness.

Elad Liebman, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Peter Stone

In recent years, there has been growing focus on the study of automated recommender systems. Music recommendation systems serve as a prominent domain for such works, both from an academic and a commercial perspective. A fundamental aspect of music perception is that music is experienced in temporal context and in sequence. In this work we present DJ-MC, a novel reinforcement-learning framework for music recommendation that does not recommend songs individually but rather song sequences, or playlists, based on a model of preferences for both songs and song transitions. The model is learned online and is uniquely adapted for each listener. To reduce exploration time, DJ-MC exploits user feedback to initialize a model, which it subsequently updates by reinforcement. We evaluate our framework with human participants using both real song and playlist data. Our results indicate that DJ-MC's ability to recommend sequences of songs provides a significant improvement over more straightforward approaches, which do not take transitions into account.