Lihi Idan

Lihi Idan, Bharat Anand

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is transforming how firms create, process, and apply knowledge, yet little is known about the heterogeneity of its productivity effects across users. We report results from a randomized controlled experiment in which participants-analogs of early-career knowledge workers-were assigned to self-study a technical domain using either traditional resources or large-language-model (LLM) assistance. On average, GenAI access significantly increased task performance, but the distribution of gains was highly uneven. Improvements were not predicted by GPA or prior knowledge, but by \textit{AI Interaction Competence (AIC)} -- the ability to elicit, filter, and verify model outputs. High-AIC participants realized outsized gains; low-AIC participants saw limited or even negative marginal returns. A scaffolding intervention (conceptual maps) reduced outcome variance, indicating that standardized workflows can mitigate inequality in AI-mediated performance. We interpret these findings through the lens of human-AI complementarities: GenAI raises mean productivity while introducing a new axis of capability inequality. Managerially, firms should pair GenAI access with short AIC micro-training and simple standard operating procedures to capture value consistently and avoid uneven adoption outcomes.

Lihi Idan

Unsupervised validation of anomaly-detection models is a highly challenging task. While the common practices for model validation involve a labeled validation set, such validation sets cannot be constructed when the underlying datasets are unlabeled. The lack of robust and efficient unsupervised model-validation techniques presents an acute challenge in the implementation of automated anomaly-detection pipelines, especially when there exists no prior knowledge of the model's performance on similar datasets. This work presents a new paradigm to automated validation of anomaly-detection models, inspired by real-world, collaborative decision-making mechanisms. We focus on two commonly-used, unsupervised model-validation tasks -- model selection and model evaluation -- and provide extensive experimental results that demonstrate the accuracy and robustness of our approach on both tasks.

Soroush Saghafian, Lihi Idan

Advanced analytics science methods have enabled combining the power of artificial and human intelligence, creating \textit{centaurs} that allow superior decision-making. Centaurs are hybrid human-algorithm models that combine both formal analytics and human intuition in a symbiotic manner within their learning and reasoning process. We argue that the future of AI development and use in many domains needs to focus more on centaurs as opposed to other AI approaches. This paradigm shift towards centaur-based AI methods raises some fundamental questions: How are centaurs different from other human-in-the-loop methods? What are the most effective methods for creating centaurs? When should centaurs be used, and when should the lead be given to pure AI models? Doesn't the incorporation of human intuition -- which at times can be misleading -- in centaurs' decision-making process degrade its performance compared to pure AI methods? This work aims to address these fundamental questions, focusing on recent advancements in generative AI, and especially in Large Language Models (LLMs), as a main case study to illustrate centaurs' critical essentiality to future AI endeavors.