Revealing a few tailored features to humans — rather than giving full predictions — can boost human–algorithm teamwork, but designing highlights for fully rational users is computationally infeasible; optimizing for more realistic, 'naive' users yields tractable and robust gains in calibrated housing-data simulations.

Main Finding

Algorithms that highlight a small, instance-specific subset of features can substantially improve human–algorithm decision performance compared with revealing a fixed feature set — but the optimal highlighting rule depends critically on how humans interpret the algorithm’s choice of features. Designing for a sophisticated updater (who conditions on the selection rule) is computationally intractable in general and can produce complex, non-robust policies; designing for a naive updater (who ignores the selection event and conditions only on revealed values) is tractable, robust, and yields simple, high-performing rules (notably a greedy contextual rule that often attains first-best for naive agents and still helps sophisticated agents). In calibrated simulations on the American Housing Survey, a contextual greedy policy cutting to k = 10 features reduces loss by over half and can even outperform revealing all features.

Key Points

• Problem setup

  • An algorithm (principal) observes full feature vector X ∈ Rd and may highlight up to k features (I) to a bandwidth-limited human (agent).
  • The human observes (I, XI) and forms a posterior; two agent types:
    • Sophisticated: conditions on both revealed values and the fact that those features were selected (uses σ).
    • Naive: conditions only on revealed values XI and treats selection as exogenous.
  • Designer and agent share aligned objectives: minimize expected loss (general loss ℓ; squared loss/recovery is a main special case).

• Conceptual contributions

  • Highlighting (instance-contingent feature selection) is a practical, interpretable alternative to sending a full prediction or opaque summary.
  • Whether the human conditions on the selection rule fundamentally alters the optimal highlighting policy and its computation, robustness, and interpretability.

• Theoretical results

  • Policy gaps and nonrobustness:
    • The optimal policy for sophisticated agents can perform arbitrarily badly when used with naive agents (“price of complexity”).
    • Policies optimized for naive agents may also be arbitrarily suboptimal for sophisticated agents (“price of simplicity”).
  • Computational complexity:
    • Finding an optimal highlighting policy for a sophisticated agent is NP-hard (hardness parallels results in algorithmic Bayesian persuasion).
    • For naive agents, the design problem is polynomial-time solvable when k (max bandwidth) is fixed.
  • Greedy/contextual rules:
    • A simple greedy algorithm that selects features incrementally by marginal information gain is optimal for naive updating in the model of independent binary features, and it provides substantial gains for sophisticated agents too.
    • Additional information is not always beneficial: optimal policies can withhold features when they are misleading (non-monotonicity in k).
  • Analytic characterization:
    • Closed-form asymptotic average-loss expressions for independent binary features; extensions to weakly correlated features.
  • Robustness and extensions:
    • Sophisticated-optimal policies are often complex and brittle; naive-optimal policies are simpler and more robust to plausible behavioral departures (stereotypes, partial naiveté).
    • Extensions discussed: behavioral biases, private agent information, wrong priors, misaligned preferences, Gaussian feature models (which make sophisticated solutions unintuitive).

• Empirical/calibration findings (American Housing Survey)

  • Data: ~1,500 homes (Minneapolis–St. Paul), 44 housing features; Gaussian belief model.
  • Results: contextual greedy highlighting with k = 10 cuts loss by more than 50% relative to a fixed-feature baseline, and can outperform full revelation of nearly all non-price features (illustrating non-monotonicity).

Data & Methods

• Formal model
  • Feature vector X = (Xi)i∈M with |M| = d. A deterministic highlighting policy σ : X → {I ⊆ M : |I| ≤ k}.
  • Agent posterior types:
    • bPS(· | I, XI) = P(· | XI, σ(X) = I) (sophisticated).
    • bPN(· | I, XI) = P(· | XI) (naive).
  • Agent chooses Bayes action ba to minimize expected loss; designer minimizes same expected loss Rτ(σ) over σ subject to |I| ≤ k.
  • Special cases: squared-loss recovery (posterior mean target), outcome-targeted recovery (combination of reconstructing X and predicting Y).
• Theoretical methods
  • Hardness proof: reduction-style NP-hardness for designer problem under sophisticated updating (links to literature on Bayesian persuasion complexity).
  • Algorithmic results: polynomial-time solvability for naive case when k fixed; greedy algorithm analysis leveraging approximate submodularity-type arguments and closed-form analysis for independent binary features.
  • Robustness/separation proofs: constructions showing unbounded losses when designer targets the wrong updater.
• Empirical calibration
  • Data: American Housing Survey (44 non-price features for ~1,500 homes).
  • Belief model: multivariate Gaussian prior/calibrated moments over features; squared-loss-type objective combining reconstruction and outcome prediction in some exercises.
  • Policies compared: fixed-subset baseline, contextual greedy, full revelation; reported expected loss reductions and instances illustrating non-monotonicity.

Implications for AI Economics

• For algorithm designers and firms

  • Design for the audience you have: if users are plausibly naive (ignore selection), prioritize tractable naive-optimal or greedy contextual highlighting — these are computationally feasible, interpretable, and robust.
  • Avoid over-optimizing for sophisticated conditioning unless you can (a) guarantee sophisticated updating behavior, and (b) handle the computational complexity; otherwise policies may be brittle and harmful.
  • Contextual (instance-wise) feature highlighting can substantially improve decision quality over fixed-feature displays even with simple heuristics.
  • Simplicity has value: greedy/contextual policies are easier to explain, verify on a case-by-case basis, and less likely to induce misleading inferences than complex, state-dependent selection rules designed for sophisticated agents.

• For policy and regulation

  • Interpretability and verifiability matter: highlighting actual features (rather than opaque LLM summaries) preserves verifiable content and may reduce risks from hallucination or deception.
  • Transparency about selection policies matters for downstream inference. If regulators expect users to reason about how features were selected, they should require mechanisms or disclosures that enable sophisticated conditioning; otherwise, require robust/simple highlighting rules that perform well under naive updating.
  • Misaligned incentives remain a risk: if the principal has different objectives (persuasion), selection can be used strategically (as in Bayesian persuasion). Regulation should consider both the content revealed and the selection mechanism.

• For welfare and human capital

  • Human heterogeneity in inferential sophistication implies potential distributional effects: different user groups may respond differently to highlighting, affecting equity in hiring, lending, or medical triage.
  • Training users to interpret selection (raising sophistication) can unlock benefits of more informative, tailored policies — but such training is costly and may be impractical at scale; designers should weigh these trade-offs.
  • Bandwidth constraints matter: more information is not always better. Designers should test whether marginal features reduce rather than increase decision accuracy.

• For research and practical deployment

  • Operational recommendation: deploy contextual greedy highlighting as a default operational policy — it is simple, fast, interpretable, and performs well under a wide range of agent behaviors.
  • Important open directions: mixed updating models (partial sophistication), empirical measurement of real human updating behavior in feature-highlighting contexts, learning highlighting policies from human response data, and mechanism design to align incentives when principals may be strategic.
  • Computational constraints should be a central consideration in information-design problems in practice — tractability and robustness often dominate theoretical first-best optimality.

Authors: Yifan Guo & Jann Spiess (Stanford GSB), April 23, 2026.