Human Responses to Algorithmic Correction: Evidence from Centre Court
David Almog, Romain Gauriot, Lionel Page, Daniel Martin
We study how algorithmic review changes error composition using Hawk-Eye records from professional tennis. Within 20 mm of the line, mistaken "in" call rates increase by 8.6 percentage points, while mistaken "out" call rates decrease by 4.1 points. Within matches, calls shift toward avoiding previously overturned errors. We find no evidence that initial accuracy deteriorates within 100 mm of the line, despite concerns that workers may rely on correction as a safety net. We derive an investment framework incorporating human responses alongside correction benefits and remedy costs, showing that holding human decisions fixed can misstate the organizational returns to review.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要