Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchSiguranță AI

analiza aiqbench

This paper introduces the "2-Step Agent" framework to model how rational Bayesian agents update beliefs and make decisions based on ML predictions, revealing that even well-specified models can yield worse outcomes if the agent's prior beliefs are misaligned. By deriving tractable solutions for Bayesian inference in this setting, the study experimentally identifies specific conditions where ML-based decision support is beneficial versus harmful. The core insight for practitioners is that the reliability of decision support systems depends critically on the alignment between the model's information and the decision-maker's existing beliefs, not just model accuracy.
Surse care acoperăarXiv, LessWrong, Quantum Frontiers, SiliconANGLE
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

2-Step Agent: A Framework for the Interaction of a Decision Maker with AI Decision Support

arXiv2 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2602.21889v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Predictions from ML models support human decision making in several fields, including high-stakes ones such as healthcare and the judiciary. Yet, we still lack a clear understanding of how decision makers learn from ML-based decision support (ML-DS). In this paper, we introduce a general computational framework, the 2-Step Agent, to capture this process. As a prediction from an ML model contains information about the training data, a prediction can also be used for inference. Our framework models (i) how a prediction for a new observation affects the beliefs of a rational Bayesian agent, and (ii) how this change in beliefs affects the estimation of causal effect, the downstream decision, and the subsequent outcome. In addition to the framework itself, we make three contributions. First, for the linear Gaussian setting, we derive a tractable solution for the challenging Bayesian inference problem we introduced, i.e. one in which the agent infers from an ML prediction. Second, we experimentally identify conditions under which ML-DS is beneficial. Third, we show that a single misaligned prior belief can be sufficient for ML-DS to lead to worse downstream outcomes compared to no decision support even when the ML model is well-specified and the agent is perfectly rational. Hence, even under ideal conditions, ML-DS can do more harm than good.

Abstract:Predictions from ML models support human decision making in several fields, including high-stakes ones such as healthcare and the judiciary. Yet, we still lack a clear understanding of how decision makers learn from ML-based decision support (ML-DS). In this paper, we introduce a general computational framework, the 2-Step Agent, to capture this process. As a prediction from an ML model contains information about the training data, a prediction can also be used for inference. Our framework models (i) how a prediction for a new observation affects the beliefs of a rational Bayesian agent, and (ii) how this change in beliefs affects the estimation of causal effect, the downstream decision, and the subsequent outcome. In addition to the framework itself, we make three contributions. First, for the linear Gaussian setting, we derive a tractable solution for the challenging Bayesian inference problem we introduced, i.e. one in which the agent infers from an ML prediction. Second, we experimentally identify conditions under which ML-DS is beneficial. Third, we show that a single misaligned prior belief can be sufficient for ML-DS to lead to worse downstream outcomes compared to no decision support even when the ML model is well-specified and the agent is perfectly rational. Hence, even under ideal conditions, ML-DS can do more harm than good.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2602.21889 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2602.21889v3 [cs.AI] for this version)

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 227 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe