D. James Greiner

Eli Ben-Michael, D. James Greiner, Melody Huang et al.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or more generally data-driven algorithms, has become ubiquitous in today's society. Yet, in many cases and especially when stakes are high, humans still make final decisions. The critical question, therefore, is whether AI helps humans make better decisions compared to a human-alone or AI-alone system. We introduce a new methodological framework to empirically answer this question with a minimal set of assumptions. We measure a decision maker's ability to make correct decisions using standard classification metrics based on the baseline potential outcome. We consider a single-blinded and unconfounded treatment assignment, where the provision of AI-generated recommendations is assumed to be randomized across cases with humans making final decisions. Under this study design, we show how to compare the performance of three alternative decision-making systems--human-alone, human-with-AI, and AI-alone. Importantly, the AI-alone system includes any individualized treatment assignment, including those that are not used in the original study. We also show when AI recommendations should be provided to a human-decision maker, and when one should follow such recommendations. We apply the proposed methodology to our own randomized controlled trial evaluating a pretrial risk assessment instrument. We find that the risk assessment recommendations do not improve the classification accuracy of a judge's decision to impose cash bail. Furthermore, we find that replacing a human judge with algorithms--the risk assessment score and a large language model in particular--leads to a worse classification performance.

Eli Ben-Michael, D. James Greiner, Kosuke Imai et al.

Algorithmic recommendations and decisions have become ubiquitous in today's society. Many of these data-driven policies, especially in the realm of public policy, are based on known, deterministic rules to ensure their transparency and interpretability. We examine a particular case of algorithmic pre-trial risk assessments in the US criminal justice system, which provide deterministic classification scores and recommendations to help judges make release decisions. Our goal is to analyze data from a unique field experiment on an algorithmic pre-trial risk assessment to investigate whether the scores and recommendations can be improved. Unfortunately, prior methods for policy learning are not applicable because they require existing policies to be stochastic. We develop a maximin robust optimization approach that partially identifies the expected utility of a policy, and then finds a policy that maximizes the worst-case expected utility. The resulting policy has a statistical safety property, limiting the probability of producing a worse policy than the existing one, under structural assumptions about the outcomes. Our analysis of data from the field experiment shows that we can safely improve certain components of the risk assessment instrument by classifying arrestees as lower risk under a wide range of utility specifications, though the analysis is not informative about several components of the instrument.