Learning to Complement Humans

Catalog evidence and recorded chart appearances. Inclusion is not an endorsement.

Source snapshot imported 2026-10-20. This is not a live feed. Source and contributions.

Evidence and limits

Finding: Optimizing a model for the combined human-machine result can outperform optimizing the model alone when human error patterns are known.

Impact: Watch complementary-error allocation as a candidate evaluation. Reject stand-alone model accuracy as the only routing signal.

Boundary: The tasks are structured and depend on labeled or estimable human behavior. Next: how can complementary error regions be estimated without profiling people beyond the owning workflow's need?

Flags: known-label tasks; modeled human behavior

Record State: Catalog review recorded; not a performance endorsement

What was reviewed: Structure and relevance screened; not a full evaluation

Inspect original source

Recorded chart appearances

  • 2026-10-13: position 78. Relevant to the recorded review topic (see source); Structure and relevance screened; not a full evaluation evidence
  • 2026-10-12: position 77. Relevant to the recorded review topic (see source); Structure and relevance screened; not a full evaluation evidence