Investigating Human + Machine Complementarity for Recidivism Predictions

Abstract

When might human input help (or not) when assessing risk in fairness domains? Dressel and Farid (2018) asked Mechanical Turk workers to evaluate a subset of defendants in the ProPublica COMPAS data for risk of recidivism, and concluded that COMPAS predictions were no more accurate or fair than predictions made by humans. We delve deeper into this claim to explore differences in human and algorithmic decision making. We construct a Human Risk Score based on the predictions made by multiple Turk workers, characterize the features that determine agreement and disagreement between COMPAS and Human Scores, and construct hybrid Human+Machine models to predict recidivism. Our key finding is that on this data set, Human and COMPAS decision making differed, but not in ways that could be leveraged to significantly improve ground-truth prediction. We present the results of our analyses and suggestions for data collection best practices to leverage complementary strengths of human and machines in the fairness domain.

References in corpus (2)

• Deep Learning for Identifying Metastatic Breast Cancer
• Fairer and more accurate, but for whom?

Cited by in corpus (5)

• Are Visual Explanations Useful? A Case Study in Model-in-the-Loop Prediction
• Human-AI Symbiosis: A Survey of Current Approaches
• To Trust or Not to Trust a Regressor: Estimating and Explaining Trustworthiness of Regression Predictions
• Static Algorithm, Evolving Epidemic: Understanding the Potential of Human-AI Risk Assessment to Support Regional Overdose Prevention
• Online publication of court records: circumventing the privacy-transparency trade-off