Bryce McLaughlin

Bryce McLaughlin, Jann Spiess

When an algorithm provides risk assessments, we typically think of them as helpful inputs to human decisions, such as when risk scores are presented to judges or doctors. However, a decision-maker may react not only to the information provided by the algorithm. The decision-maker may also view the algorithmic recommendation as a default action, making it costly for them to deviate, such as when a judge is reluctant to overrule a high-risk assessment for a defendant or a doctor fears the consequences of deviating from recommended procedures. To address such unintended consequences of algorithmic assistance, we propose a model of joint human-machine decision-making. Within this model, we consider the effect and design of algorithmic recommendations when they affect choices not just by shifting beliefs, but also by altering preferences. We motivate this assumption from institutional factors, such as a desire to avoid audits, as well as from well-established models in behavioral science that predict loss aversion relative to a reference point. We show that recommendation-dependent preferences create inefficiencies where the decision-maker is overly responsive to the recommendation. As a remedy, we discuss algorithms that strategically withhold recommendations and show how they can improve the quality of final decisions. Concretely, we prove that an intuitive algorithm achieves minimax optimality by sending recommendations only when it is confident that their implementation would improve over an unassisted baseline decision.

Hamsa Bastani, Osbert Bastani, Bryce McLaughlin

A major challenge in data-driven decision-making is accurate policy evaluation-i.e., guaranteeing that a learned decision-making policy achieves the promised benefits. A popular strategy is model-based policy evaluation, which estimates a model from data to infer counterfactual outcomes. This strategy is known to produce unwarrantedly optimistic estimates of the true benefit due to the winner's curse. We searched the recent literature on data-driven decision-making, identifying a sample of 55 papers published in the Management Science in the past decade; all but two relied on this flawed methodology. Several common justifications are provided: (1) the estimated models are accurate, stable, and well-calibrated, (2) the historical data uses random treatment assignment, (3) the model family is well-specified, and (4) the evaluation methodology uses sample splitting. Unfortunately, we show that no combination of these justifications avoids the winner's curse. First, we provide a theoretical analysis demonstrating that the winner's curse can cause large, spurious reported benefits even when all these justifications hold. Second, we perform a simulation study based on the recent and consequential data-driven refugee matching problem. We construct a synthetic refugee matching environment (calibrated to closely match the real setting) but designed so that no assignment policy can improve expected employment compared to random assignment. Model-based methods report large, stable gains of around 60% even when the true effect is zero; these gains are on par with improvements of 22-75% reported in the literature. Our results provide strong evidence against model-based evaluation.

Bryce McLaughlin, Jann Spiess

Algorithms frequently assist, rather than replace, human decision-makers. However, the design and analysis of algorithms often focus on predicting outcomes and do not explicitly model their effect on human decisions. This discrepancy between the design and role of algorithmic assistants becomes particularly concerning in light of empirical evidence that suggests that algorithmic assistants again and again fail to improve human decisions. In this article, we formalize the design of recommendation algorithms that assist human decision-makers without making restrictive ex-ante assumptions about how recommendations affect decisions. We formulate an algorithmic-design problem that leverages the potential-outcomes framework from causal inference to model the effect of recommendations on a human decision-maker's binary treatment choice. Within this model, we introduce a monotonicity assumption that leads to an intuitive classification of human responses to the algorithm. Under this assumption, we can express the human's response to algorithmic recommendations in terms of their compliance with the algorithm and the active decision they would take if the algorithm sends no recommendation. We showcase the utility of our framework using an online experiment that simulates a hiring task. We argue that our approach can make sense of the relative performance of different recommendation algorithms in the experiment and can help design solutions that realize human-AI complementarity. Finally, we leverage our approach to derive minimax optimal recommendation algorithms that can be implemented with machine learning using limited training data.

Hamsa Bastani, Osbert Bastani, Bryce McLaughlin

There has been a surge of recent interest in automatically learning policies to target treatment decisions based on rich individual covariates. A common approach is to train a machine learning model to predict counterfactual outcomes, and then select the policy that optimizes the predicted objective value. In addition, practitioners also want confidence that the learned policy has better performance than the incumbent policy according to downstream policy evaluation. However, due to the winner's curse-an issue where the policy optimization procedure exploits prediction errors rather than finding actual improvements-predicted performance improvements are often not substantiated by downstream policy optimization. To address this challenge, we propose a novel strategy called inference-aware policy optimization, which modifies policy optimization to account for how the policy will be evaluated downstream. Specifically, it optimizes not only for the estimated objective value, but also for the chances that the policy will be statistically significantly better than the observational policy used to collect data. We mathematically characterize the Pareto frontier of policies according to the tradeoff of these two goals. Based on our characterization, we design a policy optimization algorithm that uses machine learning to predict counterfactual outcomes, and then plugs in these predictions to estimate the Pareto frontier; then, the decision-maker can select the policy that optimizes their desired tradeoff, after which policy evaluation can be performed on the test set as usual. Finally, we perform simulations to illustrate the effectiveness of our methodology.

Talia Gillis, Bryce McLaughlin, Jann Spiess

When machine-learning algorithms are used in high-stakes decisions, we want to ensure that their deployment leads to fair and equitable outcomes. This concern has motivated a fast-growing literature that focuses on diagnosing and addressing disparities in machine predictions. However, many machine predictions are deployed to assist in decisions where a human decision-maker retains the ultimate decision authority. In this article, we therefore consider in a formal model and in a lab experiment how properties of machine predictions affect the resulting human decisions. In our formal model of statistical decision-making, we show that the inclusion of a biased human decision-maker can revert common relationships between the structure of the algorithm and the qualities of resulting decisions. Specifically, we document that excluding information about protected groups from the prediction may fail to reduce, and may even increase, ultimate disparities. In the lab experiment, we demonstrate how predictions informed by gender-specific information can reduce average gender disparities in decisions. While our concrete theoretical results rely on specific assumptions about the data, algorithm, and decision-maker, and the experiment focuses on a particular prediction task, our findings show more broadly that any study of critical properties of complex decision systems, such as the fairness of machine-assisted human decisions, should go beyond focusing on the underlying algorithmic predictions in isolation.