← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2401.16754 · v5
Human Responses to Algorithmic Correction: Evidence from Centre Court
首次提交 2024-01-30 13:22
版本更新 2026-11-05 05:24
雷达观测 2026-11-06 11:06
摘要
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.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v5 · 2026-11-05 05:24 · 最新观测版本
Human Responses to Algorithmic Correction: Evidence from Centre Court
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.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗