Expertise Trees Resolve Knowledge Limitations in Collective Decision-Making

Experts advising decision-makers are likely to display expertise which varies as a function of the problem instance. In practice, this may lead to sub-optimal or discriminatory decisions against minority cases. In this work we model such changes in depth and breadth of knowledge as a partitioning of the problem space into regions of differing expertise. We provide here new algorithms that explicitly consider and adapt to the relationship between problem instances and experts' knowledge. We first propose and highlight the drawbacks of a naive approach based on nearest neighbor queries. To address these drawbacks we then introduce a novel algorithm - expertise trees - that constructs decision trees enabling the learner to select appropriate models. We provide theoretical insights and empirically validate the improved performance of our novel approach on a range of problems for which existing methods proved to be inadequate.

[1]  V. Trianni,et al.  Dealing with Expert Bias in Collective Decision-Making , 2021, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Matthew Lease,et al.  Towards Unbiased and Accurate Deferral to Multiple Experts , 2021, AIES.

[3]  Alexander Rakhlin,et al.  Beyond UCB: Optimal and Efficient Contextual Bandits with Regression Oracles , 2020, ICML.

[4]  S. Tamang,et al.  Potential Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms Using Electronic Health Record Data , 2018, JAMA internal medicine.

[5]  Jasper Snoek,et al.  Deep Bayesian Bandits Showdown: An Empirical Comparison of Bayesian Deep Networks for Thompson Sampling , 2018, ICLR.

[6]  Gergely Neu,et al.  Explore no more: Improved high-probability regret bounds for non-stochastic bandits , 2015, NIPS.

[7]  Luís Torgo,et al.  OpenML: networked science in machine learning , 2014, SKDD.

[8]  Nello Cristianini,et al.  Finite-Time Analysis of Kernelised Contextual Bandits , 2013, UAI.

[9]  Pedro M. Domingos A few useful things to know about machine learning , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[10]  Wei Chu,et al.  Contextual Bandits with Linear Payoff Functions , 2011, AISTATS.

[11]  S. J. Whitehead,et al.  Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. , 2010, British medical bulletin.

[12]  Geoff Holmes,et al.  New Options for Hoeffding Trees , 2007, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[13]  J. Edward Russo,et al.  Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option , 2007 .

[14]  Claude Sammut,et al.  Incremental Learning of Linear Model Trees , 2004, Machine Learning.

[15]  Peter Auer,et al.  Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem , 2002, Machine Learning.

[16]  L. Breiman Random Forests , 2001, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[17]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Induction of model trees for predicting continuous classes , 1996 .

[18]  Simon Kasif,et al.  A System for Induction of Oblique Decision Trees , 1994, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[19]  Léon Bottou,et al.  Local Learning Algorithms , 1992, Neural Computation.

[20]  W. R. Thompson ON THE LIKELIHOOD THAT ONE UNKNOWN PROBABILITY EXCEEDS ANOTHER IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE OF TWO SAMPLES , 1933 .

[21]  R. Pohl Cognitive illusions : a handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory , 2004 .

[22]  Peter Auer,et al.  The Nonstochastic Multiarmed Bandit Problem , 2002, SIAM J. Comput..

[23]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Wishful thinking from a pragmatic hypothesis-testing perspective , 1997 .