Abstract:The rise of machine learning has fundamentally altered decision making: rather than being made solely by people, many important decisions are now made through an "algorithm-in-the-loop'' process where machine learning models inform people. Yet insufficient research has considered how the interactions between people and models actually influence human decisions. Society lacks both clear normative principles regarding how people should collaborate with algorithms as well as robust empirical evidence about how people do collaborate with algorithms. Given research suggesting that people struggle to interpret machine learning models and to incorporate them into their decisions---sometimes leading these models to produce unexpected outcomes---it is essential to consider how different ways of presenting models and structuring human-algorithm interactions affect the quality and type of decisions made. This paper contributes to such research in two ways. First, we posited three principles as essential to ethical and responsible algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. Second, through a controlled experimental study on Amazon Mechanical Turk, we evaluated whether people satisfy these principles when making predictions with the aid of a risk assessment. We studied human predictions in two contexts (pretrial release and financial lending) and under several conditions for risk assessment presentation and structure. Although these conditions did influence participant behaviors and in some cases improved performance, only one desideratum was consistently satisfied. Under all conditions, our study participants 1) were unable to effectively evaluate the accuracy of their own or the risk assessment's predictions, 2) did not calibrate their reliance on the risk assessment based on the risk assessment's performance, and 3) exhibited bias in their interactions with the risk assessment. These results highlight the urgent need to expand our analyses of algorithmic decision making aids beyond evaluating the models themselves to investigating the full sociotechnical contexts in which people and algorithms interact.

On the (non-) reliance on algorithms—A decision-theoretic account

Dynamics of Reliance on Algorithmic Advice

Reputational Algorithm Aversion

People Prefer Moral Discretion to Algorithms: Algorithm Aversion Beyond Intransparency

An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making

Algorithm aversion? On the influence of advice accuracy on trust in algorithmic advice

Persuasion, Delegation, and Private Information in Algorithm-Assisted Decisions

Decision-aid or Controller? Steering Human Decision Makers with Algorithms

Influence of the algorithm's reliability and transparency in the user's decision-making process

Who is the Expert? Reconciling Algorithm Aversion and Algorithm Appreciation in AI-Supported Decision Making

Algorithms in selection decisions: Effective, but unappreciated

A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making

Algorithmic Decision Making in the Presence of Unmeasured Confounding

Algorithm Overdependence: How the Use of Algorithmic Recommendation Systems Can Increase Risks to Consumer Well-Being

Humans rely more on algorithms than social influence as a task becomes more difficult

The extent of algorithm aversion in decision-making situations with varying gravity

The ABC of algorithmic aversion: not agent, but benefits and control determine the acceptance of automated decision-making

On the Advantages of Distinguishing Between Predictive and Allocative Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making

Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion

The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making

Trust in Public Policy Algorithms