Suhas Thejaswi

Adrian Arnaiz-Rodriguez, Nina Corvelo Benz, Suhas Thejaswi et al.

Data-driven algorithmic matching systems promise to help human decision makers make better matching decisions in a wide variety of high-stakes application domains, such as healthcare and social service provision. However, existing systems are not designed to achieve human-AI complementarity: decisions made by a human using an algorithmic matching system are not necessarily better than those made by the human or by the algorithm alone. Our work aims to address this gap. To this end, we propose collaborative matching (comatch), a data-driven algorithmic matching system that takes a collaborative approach: rather than making all the matching decisions for a matching task like existing systems, it selects only the decisions that it is the most confident in, deferring the rest to the human decision maker. In the process, comatch optimizes how many decisions it makes and how many it defers to the human decision maker to provably maximize performance. We conduct a large-scale human subject study with $800$ participants to validate the proposed approach. The results demonstrate that the matching outcomes produced by comatch outperform those generated by either human participants or by algorithmic matching on their own. The data gathered in our human subject study and an implementation of our system are available as open source at https://github.com/Networks-Learning/human-AI-complementarity-matching.

Ivi Chatzi, Eleni Straitouri, Suhas Thejaswi et al.

Large language models are often ranked according to their level of alignment with human preferences -- a model is better than other models if its outputs are more frequently preferred by humans. One of the popular ways to elicit human preferences utilizes pairwise comparisons between the outputs provided by different models to the same inputs. However, since gathering pairwise comparisons by humans is costly and time-consuming, it has become a common practice to gather pairwise comparisons by a strong large language model -- a model strongly aligned with human preferences. Surprisingly, practitioners cannot currently measure the uncertainty that any mismatch between human and model preferences may introduce in the constructed rankings. In this work, we develop a statistical framework to bridge this gap. Given a (small) set of pairwise comparisons by humans and a large set of pairwise comparisons by a model, our framework provides a rank-set -- a set of possible ranking positions -- for each of the models under comparison. Moreover, it guarantees that, with a probability greater than or equal to a user-specified value, the rank-sets cover the true ranking consistent with the distribution of human pairwise preferences asymptotically. Using pairwise comparisons made by humans in the LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform and pairwise comparisons made by three strong large language models, we empirically demonstrate the effectivity of our framework and show that the rank-sets constructed using only pairwise comparisons by the strong large language models are often inconsistent with (the distribution of) human pairwise preferences.

Nina Corvelo Benz, Stratis Tsirtsis, Eleni Straitouri et al.

State of the art large language models rely on randomization to respond to a prompt. As an immediate consequence, a model may respond differently to the same prompt if asked multiple times. In this work, we argue that the evaluation and ranking of large language models should control for the randomization underpinning their functioning. Our starting point is the development of a causal model for coupled autoregressive generation, which allows different large language models to sample responses with the same source of randomness. Building upon our causal model, we first show that, on evaluations based on benchmark datasets, coupled autoregressive generation leads to the same conclusions as vanilla autoregressive generation but using provably fewer samples. However, we further show that, on evaluations based on (human) pairwise comparisons, coupled and vanilla autoregressive generation can surprisingly lead to different rankings when comparing more than two models, even with an infinite amount of samples. This suggests that the apparent advantage of a model over others in existing evaluation protocols may not be genuine but rather confounded by the randomness inherent to the generation process. To illustrate and complement our theoretical results, we conduct experiments with several large language models from the Llama, Mistral and Qwen families. We find that, across multiple benchmark datasets, coupled autoregressive generation requires up to 75% fewer samples to reach the same conclusions as vanilla autoregressive generation. Further, we find that the win-rates derived from pairwise comparisons by a strong large language model to prompts from the LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform differ under coupled and vanilla autoregressive generation.

Seungeon Lee, Nina Corvelo Benz, Suhas Thejaswi et al.

Resettlement agencies have started to adopt data-driven algorithmic matching to match refugees to locations using employment rate as a measure of utility. Given a pool of refugees, data-driven algorithmic matching utilizes a classifier to predict the probability that each refugee would find employment at any given location. Then, it uses the predicted probabilities to estimate the expected utility of all possible placement decisions. Finally, it finds the placement decisions that maximize the predicted utility by solving a maximum weight bipartite matching problem. In this work, we argue that, using existing solutions, there may be pools of refugees for which data-driven algorithmic matching is (counterfactually) harmful -- it would have achieved lower utility than a given default policy used in the past, had it been used. Then, we develop a post-processing algorithm that, given placement decisions made by a default policy on a pool of refugees and their employment outcomes, solves an inverse~matching problem to minimally modify the predictions made by a given classifier. Under these modified predictions, the optimal matching policy that maximizes predicted utility on the pool is guaranteed to be not harmful. Further, we introduce a Transformer model that, given placement decisions made by a default policy on multiple pools of refugees and their employment outcomes, learns to modify the predictions made by a classifier so that the optimal matching policy that maximizes predicted utility under the modified predictions on an unseen pool of refugees is less likely to be harmful than under the original predictions. Experiments on simulated resettlement processes using synthetic refugee data created from a variety of publicly available data suggest that our methodology may be effective in making algorithmic placement decisions that are less likely to be harmful than existing solutions.

Eleni Straitouri, Suhas Thejaswi, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez

Decision support systems based on prediction sets help humans solve multiclass classification tasks by narrowing down the set of potential label values to a subset of them, namely a prediction set, and asking them to always predict label values from the prediction sets. While this type of systems have been proven to be effective at improving the average accuracy of the predictions made by humans, by restricting human agency, they may cause harm$\unicode{x2014}$a human who has succeeded at predicting the ground-truth label of an instance on their own may have failed had they used these systems. In this paper, our goal is to control how frequently a decision support system based on prediction sets may cause harm, by design. To this end, we start by characterizing the above notion of harm using the theoretical framework of structural causal models. Then, we show that, under a natural, albeit unverifiable, monotonicity assumption, we can estimate how frequently a system may cause harm using only predictions made by humans on their own. Further, we also show that, under a weaker monotonicity assumption, which can be verified experimentally, we can bound how frequently a system may cause harm again using only predictions made by humans on their own. Building upon these assumptions, we introduce a computational framework to design decision support systems based on prediction sets that are guaranteed to cause harm less frequently than a user-specified value using conformal risk control. We validate our framework using real human predictions from two different human subject studies and show that, in decision support systems based on prediction sets, there is a trade-off between accuracy and counterfactual harm.