Learning to Defer to a Population: A Meta-Learning Approach
Open accessAbstract
The learning to defer (L2D) framework allows autonomous systems to be safe and robust by allocating difficult decisions to a human expert. All existing work on L2D assumes that each expert is well-identified, and if any expert were to change, the system should be re-trained. In this work, we alleviate this constraint, formulating an L2D system that can cope with never-before-seen experts at test-time. We accomplish this by using meta-learning, considering both optimization- and model-based variants. Given a small context set to characterize the currently available expert, our framework can quickly adapt its deferral policy. For the model-based approach, we employ an attention mechanism that is able to look for points in the context set that are similar to a given test point, leading to an even more precise assessment of the expert's abilities. In the experiments, we validate our methods on image recognition, traffic sign detection, and skin lesion diagnosis benchmarks.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The assumption that ground-truth labels exist is common to all cited works and is considered necessary for an L2D algorithm to estimate the human's probability of correctness for a given instance.
“the assumption that ground-truth labels exist is common to all cited works, and is considered necessary for an L2D algorithm to be able to learn to estimate the human's probability of correctness for a given instance.”
From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Section 2.1 defines L2D training data as features, labels, and human predictions; the Learning section uses whether a human prediction matches the true label to model correctness. These passages support the role of ground-truth labels in the methods discussed, but do not establish that all cited works assume them or that they are necessary for every L2D algorithm. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Marcin Andrychowicz, Misha Denil, Sergio Gomez, Matthew W. Hoffman, David Pfau, Tom Schaul, Brendan Shillingford, and Nando De Freitas. Learn- ing to Learn by Gradient Descent by Gradient De- scent. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2016.
- Antreas Antoniou, Harrison Edwards, and Amos Storkey. How to train your MAML. In Proceed- ings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
- Peter L. Bartlett and Marten H. Wegkamp. Classi- fication with a Reject Option Using a Hinge Loss. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2008.
- Peter L. Bartlett, Michael I. Jordan, and Jon D. McAuliffe. Convexity, Classification, and Risk Bounds. Journal of the American Statistical As- sociation, 2006.
- John Bronskill, Jonathan Gordon, James Requeima, Sebastian Nowozin, and Richard Turner. TaskNorm: Rethinking Batch Normalization for Meta-Learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020.
- Yuzhou Cao, Tianchi Cai, Lei Feng, Lihong Gu, Jinjie Gu, Bo An, Gang Niu, and Masashi Sugiyama. Gen- eralizing Consistent Multi-Class Classification with Rejection to be Compatible with Arbitrary Losses. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022.
- Yuzhou Cao, Hussein Mozannar, Lei Feng, Hongxin Wei, and Bo An. In Defense of Softmax Parametriza- tion for Calibrated and Consistent Learning to Defer. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 2023.
- Nontawat Charoenphakdee, Zhenghang Cui, Yivan Zhang, and Masashi Sugiyama. Classification with Rejection Based on Cost-sensitive Classification. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021.
- Mohammad-Amin Charusaie, Hussein Mozannar, David Sontag, and Samira Samadi. Sample Efficient Learning of Predictors that Complement Humans. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022.
- C. K. Chow. An Optimum Character Recognition System Using Decision Functions. IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers, 1957.
- Corinna Cortes, Giulia DeSalvo, and Mehryar Mohri. Boosting with Abstention. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2016a.
- Corinna Cortes, Giulia DeSalvo, and Mehryar Mohri. Learning with Rejection. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, 2016b.
- Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Model- Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adaptation of Deep Networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017.
- Andrew Y. K. Foong, Wessel P. Bruinsma, Jonathan Gordon, Yann Dubois, James Requeima, and Richard E. Turner. Meta-Learning Stationary Stochastic Process Prediction with Convolutional Neural Processes. In Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 2020.
- Marta Garnelo, Dan Rosenbaum, Christopher Maddi- son, Tiago Ramalho, David Saxton, Murray Shana- han, Yee Whye Teh, Danilo Rezende, and S. M. Ali Eslami. Conditional Neural Processes. In Proceed- ings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2018.
- Jonathan Gordon, Wessel P. Bruinsma, Andrew Y. K. Foong, James Requeima, Yann Dubois, and Richard E. Turner. Convolutional Conditional Neu- ral Processes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020.
- Yves Grandvalet, Alain Rakotomamonjy, Joseph Keshet, and Stéphane Canu. Support Vector Ma- chines with a Reject Option. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2009.
- Patrick Hemmer, Sebastian Schellhammer, Michael Vössing, Johannes Jakubik, and Gerhard Satzger. Forming Effective Human-AI Teams: Building Ma- chine Learning Models that Complement the Capa- bilities of Multiple Experts. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
- Patrick Hemmer, Lukas Thede, Michael Vössing, Jo- hannes Jakubik, and Niklas Kühl. Learning to Defer with Limited Expert Predictions. In Proceedings of the 37th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023.
- Timothy Hospedales, Antreas Antoniou, Paul Micaelli, and Amos Storkey. Meta-Learning in Neural Net- works: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2021.
- Sebastian Houben, Johannes Stallkamp, Jan Salmen, Marc Schlipsing, and Christian Igel. Detection of Traffic Signs in Real-World Images: The German Traffic Sign Detection Benchmark. In International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2013.
- Heinrich Jiang, Been Kim, Melody Y. Guan, and Maya Gupta. To Trust or Not to Trust a Classifier. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018.
- Ece Kamar. Directions in Hybrid Intelligence: Com- plementing AI Systems with Human Intelligence. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, 2016.
- Makoto Kawano, Wataru Kumagai, Akiyoshi Sannai, Yusuke Iwasawa, and Yutaka Matsuo. Group Equiv- ariant Conditional Neural Processes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2021.
- Vijay Keswani, Matthew Lease, and Krishnaram Ken- thapadi. Towards Unbiased and Accurate Deferral to Multiple Experts. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2021.
- Hyunjik Kim, Andriy Mnih, Jonathan Schwarz, Marta Garnelo, Ali Eslami, Dan Rosenbaum, Oriol Vinyals, and Yee Whye Teh. Attentive Neural Processes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019.
- Diogo Leitão, Pedro Saleiro, Mário A. T. Figueiredo, and Pedro Bizarro. Human-AI Collaboration in Decision-Making: Beyond Learning to Defer. ICML Workshop on Human-Machine Collaboration and Teaming, 2022.
- David Madras, Toniann Pitassi, and Richard Zemel. Predict Responsibly: Improving Fairness and Accu- racy by Learning to Defer. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018.
- Anqi Mao, Christopher Mohri, Mehryar Mohri, and Yutao Zhong. Two-Stage Learning to Defer with Multiple Experts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
- Anqi Mao, Mehryar Mohri, and Yutao Zhong. Princi- pled Approaches for Learning to Defer with Multiple Experts. International Symposium on Artificial In- telligence and Mathematics, 2024.
- Hussein Mozannar and David A. Sontag. Consistent Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expert. In In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020.
- Hussein Mozannar, Hunter Lang, Dennis Wei, Prasanna Sattigeri, Subhro Das, and David Sontag. Who Should Predict? Exact Algorithms For Learn- ing to Defer to Humans. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2023.
- Harikrishna Narasimhan, Wittawat Jitkrittum, Aditya Krishna Menon, Ankit Singh Rawat, and Sanjiv Kumar. Post-hoc Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expert. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022.
- Chenri Ni, Nontawat Charoenphakdee, Junya Honda, and Masashi Sugiyama. On the Calibration of Mul- ticlass Classification with Rejection. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.
- Nastaran Okati, Abir De, and Manuel Gomez- Rodriguez. Differentiable Learning Under Triage. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 2021.
- Maithra Raghu, Katy Blumer, Greg Corrado, Jon Klein- berg, Ziad Obermeyer, and Sendhil Mullainathan. The Algorithmic Automation Problem: Prediction, Triage, and Human Effort. ArXiv e-Prints, 2019.
- Harish G. Ramaswamy, Ambuj Tewari, and Shivani Agarwal. Consistent algorithms for multiclass classi- fication with an abstain option. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 2018.
- Sachin Ravi and Hugo Larochelle. Optimization as a Model for Few-Shot Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2017.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making
Alves, J. V., Leitão, D., Jesus, S., Sampaio, M. O. P., Liébana, J., Saleiro, P., Figueiredo, M. A. T., & Bizarro, P. (2025) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-04664-y · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tailor, D., Patra, A., Verma, R., Manggala, P., & Nalisnick, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2403.02683
- OpenAlex
- W4392539801
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- learning to defer, meta-learning, human-in-the-loop decision making, attention mechanism, autonomous systems safety, image recognition, traffic sign detection, skin lesion diagnosis
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
