Abstract
SummaryJudges, doctors and managers are among those decision makers who must often choose a course of action under limited time, with limited knowledge and without the aid of a computer. Because data-driven methods typically outperform unaided judgements, resource-constrained practitioners can benefit from simple, statistically derived rules that can be applied mentally. In this work, we formalize long-standing observations about the efficacy of improper linear models to construct accurate yet easily applied rules. To test the performance of this approach, we conduct a large-scale evaluation in 22 domains and focus in detail on one: judicial decisions to release or detain defendants while they await trial. In these domains, we find that simple rules rival the accuracy of complex prediction models that base decisions on considerably more information. Further, comparing with unaided judicial decisions, we find that simple rules substantially outperform the human experts. To conclude, we present an analytical framework that sheds light on why simple rules perform as well as they do.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
