Human Responses to Algorithmic Correction: Evidence from Centre Court

David Almog, Romain Gauriot, Lionel Page and Daniel Martin

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: We study how algorithmic review changes the initial decisions that a system is designed to correct. Using Hawk-Eye data from professional tennis, we compare umpire decisions with and without review against a common accuracy benchmark. Under review, initial errors were 8.6 percentage points higher just outside the line and lower for comparably close balls inside. We find no evidence that average initial accuracy deteriorated. Within matches, reversals were followed by larger adjustments than upheld calls, consistent with adaptation to correction. Overall, correction offsets worse initial decisions for incorrect in calls and reinforces better initial decisions for incorrect out calls. Whether review lowers organizational costs depends jointly on these changes and the costs of remedying corrected errors. A conditional illustration shows how utilization spreads fixed review costs across calls.

Date: 2024-01, Revised 2026-10
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ain, nep-big, nep-cmp and nep-spo
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.16754 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2401.16754

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().