The DOI matches its Crossref record.
When Suboptimal Rules
Open accessAbstract
This paper represents a paradigm shift in what advice agents should provide people. Contrary to what was previously thought, we empirically show that agents that dispense optimal advice will not necessary facilitate the best improvement in people's strategies. Instead, we claim that agents should at times suboptimally advise. We provide results demonstrating the effectiveness of a suboptimal advising approach in extensive experiments in two canonical mixed agent-human advice-giving domains. Our proposed guideline for suboptimal advising is to rely on the level of intuitiveness of the optimal advice as a measure for how much the suboptimal advice presented to the user should drift from the optimal value.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“recent work along these lines has found that algorithmic accuracy does not always lead to the optimal outcomes”
From The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Elmalech et al., 2015
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359152 · Cited by 392
Disparate Interactions: An Algorithm-in-the-Loop Analysis of Fairness in Risk Assessments
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287563 · Cited by 275
The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms
Green, B. (2022) · Computer Law & Security Review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105681 · Cited by 263
Metadata
- Authors
- Elmalech, A., Sarne, D., Rosenfeld, A., & Erez, E.
- Affiliations
- Bar-Ilan University (IL)
- Jerusalem College of Technology (IL)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2015-02-16
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1313-1319
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 2374-3468
- OpenAlex
- W303716618
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.50
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Funders
- Israel Science Foundation (1083/13)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
- Keywords
- human-agent interaction, strategy improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
