Andrew Hillis’s research while affiliated with Harvard University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (3)


The number of violations across restaurants prioritized by each method. This figure shows kernel density plots of weighted violations found at restaurants ranked by inspectors alone compared to each of the algorithms alone.
Distance between ranked restaurants in order by method. This figure shows kernel density plots of the distance between restaurants if traveled to in order based on inspector and algorithm rankings. Mean distance between restaurants ranked by inspectors is 0.45 miles (SE = 0.05), compared to 0.82 miles (SE = 0.05) for data‐poor rankings and 0.77 miles (SE = 0.05) for data‐rich rankings.
Percentage inspected by method across inspectors. This figure plots the percentage of inspected and top‐20 ranked restaurants by method for each inspector. Each bar represents a single inspector, where the left axis indicates the inspector, and the right axis shows the number of restaurants that the inspector inspected. The red line indicates the percentage of inspector‐only ranked restaurants in the full sample of top‐20 ranked restaurants, which is where the Inspector‐Only bar (in dark gray) should have ended if inspectors had fully complied.
The distance inspectors traveled versus the closest algorithm‐ranked restaurant Not Inspected. This figure plots the distribution of the distances inspectors traveled to their next restaurant, compared with the distance to the closest algorithm‐ranked restaurant on the docket that was not inspected. Mean distance to the closest algorithm‐ranked restaurant not inspected was 0.21 miles (SE = 0.02), while mean distance to the next inspected restaurant was 0.76 miles (SE = 0.05).
Days overdue by method and inspection status. This figure plots kernel density plots of the number of days overdue across inspected and non‐inspected restaurants by whether they were ranked by inspectors or algorithms alone.
Decision authority and the returns to algorithms
  • Article
  • Full-text available

December 2023

·

18 Reads

·

32 Citations

Hyunjin Kim

·

Edward L. Glaeser

·

Andrew Hillis

·

[...]

·

Michael Luca

Research Summary We evaluate a pilot in an Inspections Department to explore the returns to a pair of algorithms that varied in their sophistication. We find that both algorithms provided substantial prediction gains, suggesting that even simple data may be helpful. However, these gains did not result in improved decisions. Inspectors often used their decision authority to override algorithmic recommendations, partly to consider other organizational objectives without improving outcomes. Interviews with 55 departments find that while some ran pilots seeking to prioritize inspections using data, all provided considerable decision authority to inspectors. These findings suggest that for algorithms to improve managerial decisions, organizations must consider both the returns to algorithms in the context and how decision authority is managed. Managerial Summary We evaluate a pilot in an Inspections Department to explore the returns to algorithms on decisions. We find that the greatest gains in this context come from integrating data into the decision process in the form of simple heuristics, rather than from increasing algorithmic sophistication or additional data. We also find that these improvements in prediction do not fully translate into improved decisions. Decision‐makers were less likely to follow data‐driven recommendations, partly in consideration of other organizational objectives, but without substantially improving on them overall. These findings suggest that organizations should consider the returns to technical sophistication in each context, and that the design and management of decision authority can be a key choice that impacts the value organizations can capture from using predictive analytics.

Download

Productivity and Selection of Human Capital with Machine Learning †

May 2016

·

255 Reads

·

179 Citations

American Economic Review

Economists have become increasingly interested in studying the nature of production functions in social policy applications, with the goal of improving productivity. Traditionally models have assumed workers are homogenous inputs. However, in practice, substantial variability in productivity means the marginal productivity of labor depends substantially on which new workers are hired--which requires not an estimate of a causal effect, but rather a prediction. We demonstrate that there can be large social welfare gains from using machine learning tools to predict worker productivity, using data from two important applications - police hiring and teacher tenure decisions.


Crowdsourcing City Government: Using Tournaments to Improve Inspection Accuracy †

May 2016

·

85 Reads

·

88 Citations

American Economic Review

Can open tournaments improve the quality of city services? The proliferation of big data makes it possible to use predictive analytics to better target services like hygiene inspections, but city governments rarely have the in-house talent needed for developing prediction algorithms. Cities could hire consultants, but a cheaper alternative is to crowdsource competence by making data public and offering a reward for the best algorithm. This paper provides a simple model suggesting that open tournaments dominate consulting contracts when cities have a reasonable tolerance for risk and when there is enough labor with low opportunity costs of time. We also illustrate how tournaments can be successful, by reporting on a Boston-based restaurant hygiene prediction tournament that we helped coordinate. The Boston tournament yielded algorithms—at low cost—that proved reasonably accurate when tested “out-of-sample” on hygiene inspections occurring after the algorithms were submitted. We draw upon our experience in working with Boston to provide practical suggestions for governments and other organizations seeking to run prediction tournaments in the future.

Citations (3)


... These tasks require interaction between humans and AI-known as augmentation-to leverage their complementary information-processing abilities, which is expected to enhance performance (Choudhury et al. 2020). Nonetheless, empirical evidence on the performance impact of augmentation remains inconclusive (Kim et al. 2024, Hillebrand et al. 2025. ...

Reference:

Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: A Field Experiment
Decision authority and the returns to algorithms

... For instance, the New York City Fire Department's FireCast program uses ML to predict which buildings are most vulnerable to fire and deploy inspection teams (Heaton, 2015). Similar algorithms have been proposed for an increasing range of policy-relevant applications, such as environmental monitoring (Hino et al., 2018), preventing malfeasance in public procurement (Gallego et al., 2021), and restaurant hygiene inspections (Glaeser et al., 2016). ...

Crowdsourcing City Government: Using Tournaments to Improve Inspection Accuracy †
  • Citing Article
  • May 2016

American Economic Review

... As algorithmic predictive capabilities advance and digitization and data collection efforts expand, new opportunities are emerging to observe how professionals make decisions with the assistance of these tools. Machine learning algorithms are eclipsing experts in many areas, including bail judges predicting pretrial misconduct (Kleinberg et al. 2018), radiologists predicting pneumonia from chest X-rays (Rajpurkar et al. 2017;Topol 2019), and workforce professionals predicting productivity for hiring and promotion (Chalfin et al. 2016). While AI has the potential to outperform many human professionals, there is hope that human-AI collaboration can yield even better results by leveraging the unique strengths of each. ...

Productivity and Selection of Human Capital with Machine Learning †
  • Citing Article
  • May 2016

American Economic Review