Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2304.07306

Learning to Defer with Limited Expert Predictions

Patrick Hemmer·Lukas Thede·Michael Vössing·Johannes Jakubik·Niklas Kühl
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent research suggests that combining AI models with a human expert can exceed the performance of either alone. The combination of their capabilities is often realized by learning to defer algorithms that enable the AI to learn to decide whether to make a prediction for a particular instance or defer it to the human expert. However, to accurately learn which instances should be deferred to the human expert, a large number of expert predictions that accurately reflect the expert's capabilities are required -- in addition to the ground truth labels needed to train the AI. This requirement shared by many learning to defer algorithms hinders their adoption in scenarios where the responsible expert regularly changes or where acquiring a sufficient number of expert predictions is costly. In this paper, we propose a three-step approach to reduce the number of expert predictions required to train learning to defer algorithms. It encompasses (1) the training of an embedding model with ground truth labels to generate feature representations that serve as a basis for (2) the training of an expertise predictor model to approximate the expert's capabilities. (3) The expertise predictor generates artificial expert predictions for instances not yet labeled by the expert, which are required by the learning to defer algorithms. We evaluate our approach on two public datasets. One with "synthetically" generated human experts and another from the medical domain containing real-world radiologists' predictions. Our experiments show that the approach allows the training of various learning to defer algorithms with a minimal number of human expert predictions. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even a small number of expert predictions per class is sufficient for these algorithms to exceed the performance the AI and the human expert can achieve individually.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AIcs.HC

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Patrick Hemmer, Lukas Thede, Michael Vössing, Johannes Jakubik, Niklas Kühl. 2023-04-14. Learning to Defer with Limited Expert Predictions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.07306

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗