CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 58Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

The Algorithmic Automation Problem: Prediction, Triage, and Human Effort

Open access
Raghu, Maithra, Blumer, Katy, Corrado, Greg, Kleinberg, Jon, Obermeyer, Ziad, Mullainathan, Sendhil·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1903.12220arXiv 1903.12220
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In a wide array of areas, algorithms are matching and surpassing the performance of human experts, leading to consideration of the roles of human judgment and algorithmic prediction in these domains. The discussion around these developments, however, has implicitly equated the specific task of prediction with the general task of automation. We argue here that automation is broader than just a comparison of human versus algorithmic performance on a task; it also involves the decision of which instances of the task to give to the algorithm in the first place. We develop a general framework that poses this latter decision as an optimization problem, and we show how basic heuristics for this optimization problem can lead to performance gains even on heavily-studied applications of AI in medicine. Our framework also serves to highlight how effective automation depends crucially on estimating both algorithmic and human error on an instance-by-instance basis, and our results show how improvements in these error estimation problems can yield significant gains for automation as well.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1903.12220

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Learning to Defer algorithms improve human-AI collaboration by deferring decisions to human experts when they are likely to be more accurate than the AI model.

    “Learning to Defer (L2D) algorithms improve human-AI collaboration by deferring decisions to human experts when they are likely to be more accurate than the AI model.”

    From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    Section 4 (p. 8) says the paper can predict which instances humans or algorithms will handle better and divide work accordingly. Section 4.2.1 (p. 10) reports performance gains from that triage. The copy supports the deferral principle, but does not identify or evaluate the approach as “Learning to Defer” (L2D) algorithms. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The state-of-the-art approach to managing assignments in human-AI collaboration is learning to defer.

    “The state-of-the-art approach to managing assignments in HAIC is learning to defer (L2D)4–13, in which algorithms choose whether to assign a task to a human expert or an ML model, leveraging their complementary strengths.”

    From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    Section 2.1 (p. 3) describes triage that assigns some instances to an algorithm and others to human attention, and Section 4 (p. 8) says this can exploit their differing strengths. The paper does not identify this approach as “learning to defer” or establish that it is state of the art; the Introduction (p. 1) instead says algorithms as then constructed were not set up to make the triage decision. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The paper chose to create a total of 50 experts because this far surpasses the numbers previously considered in learning-to-defer research.

    “We chose to create a total of 50 experts as this far surpasses the numbers previously considered in L2D research4–13.”

    From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    Section 3.3 (p. 7) describes many individual doctor grades, and Section 4 (p. 8) discusses triage between humans and algorithms. Neither gives a number of experts previously considered in learning-to-defer research, so our copy cannot establish that 50 far surpasses it. The citing authors’ choice to create 50 experts is their own, not a claim this source needs to support. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [1][1] Hasseb Ahsan. Diabetic retinopathy - biomolecules and multiple pathophysiology. Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clincal Research and Review , pages 51-54, 2015. -
  2. [3][3] Carrie J Cai, Emily Reif, Narayan Hegde, Jason Hipp, Been Kim, Daniel Smilkov, Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Viegas, Greg S Corrado, Martin C Stumpe, et al. Human-centered tools for coping with imperfect algorithms during medical decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.02960 , 2019. - · arXiv
  3. [4][4] Jeffrey De Fauw, Joseph R Ledsam, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Stanislav Nikolov, Nenad Tomasev, Sam Blackwell, Harry Askham, Xavier Glorot, Brendan O'Donoghue, Daniel Visentin, et al. Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nature medicine , 24(9):1342, 2018. -
  4. [5][5] Cem M Deniz, Siyuan Xiang, R Spencer Hallyburton, Arakua Welbeck, James S Babb, Stephen Honig, Kyunghyun Cho, and Gregory Chang. Segmentation of the proximal femur from mr images using deep convolutional neural networks. Scientific reports , 8(1):16485, 2018. -
  5. [6][6] Yiming Ding, Jae Ho Sohn, Michael G Kawczynski, Hari Trivedi, Roy Harnish, Nathaniel W Jenkins, Dmytro Lituiev, Timothy P Copeland, Mariam S Aboian, Carina Mari Aparici, et al. A deep learning model to predict a diagnosis of alzheimer disease by using 18f-fdg pet of the brain. Radiology , 290(2):456464, 2018. -
  6. [7][7] Varun Gulshan, Lily Peng, Marc Coram, Martin C Stumpe, Derek Wu, Arunachalam Narayanaswamy, Subhashini Venugopalan, Kasumi Widner, Tom Madams, Jorge Cuadros, Ramasamy Kim, Rajiv Raman, Philip Q Nelson, Jessica Mega, and Dale Webster. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA , 316(22):2402-2410, 2016. -
  7. [8][8] Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. abs/1706.04599, 2017. - · arXiv
  8. [10][10] Jonathan Krause, Varun Gulshan, Ehsan Rahimy, Peter Karth, Kasumi Widner, Gregory S. Corrado, Lily Peng, and Dale R. Webster. Grader variability and the importance of reference standards for evaluating machine learning models for diabetic retinopathy. abs/1710.01711, 2017. - · arXiv
  9. [11][11] Yun Liu, Krishna Gadepalli, Mohammad Norouzi, George E Dahl, Timo Kohlberger, Aleksey Boyko, Subhashini Venugopalan, Aleksei Timofeev, Philip Q Nelson, Greg S Corrado, et al. Detecting cancer metastases on gigapixel pathology images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.02442 , 2017. - · arXiv
  10. [12][12] Aniruddh Raghu, Matthieu Komorowski, and Sumeetpal Singh. Model-based reinforcement learning for sepsis treatment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.09602 , 2018. - · arXiv
  11. [13][13] Maithra Raghu, Katy Blumer, Rory Sayres, Ziad Obermeyer, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Jon Kleinberg. Direct uncertainty prediction with applications to healthcare. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.01771 , 2018. - · arXiv
  12. [14][14] Pranav Rajpurkar, Jeremy Irvin, Kaylie Zhu, Brandon Yang, Hershel Mehta, Tony Duan, Daisy Ding, Aarti Bagul, Curtis Langlotz, Katie Shpanskaya, Matthew P. Lungren, and Andrew Y. Ng. Chexnet: Radiologist-level pneumonia detection on chest x-rays with deep learning. abs/1711.05225, 2017. - · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raghu, M., Blumer, K., Corrado, G., Kleinberg, J., Obermeyer, Z., & Mullainathan, S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1903.12220
arXiv
1903.12220
OpenAlex
W2931108066
Cited by
58
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
algorithmic automation, algorithmic prediction, triage, human judgment, instance selection, optimization heuristics, error estimation, human error, algorithmic errors, clinical decision support, artificial intelligence in healthcare

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