arXiv preprint ·
When the Strike Zone Becomes Algorithmic: Umpire Judgment and Player Challenge Decisions under AI Review
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
The Automated Ball-Strike challenge system that Major League Baseball adopted in 2026 offers a distinctive setting for studying human AI interaction in which umpires make every ball and strike call, while players can selectively ask an automated system to publicly overturn those decisions. We analyze 4,114,256 called pitches from 2015 through 2026 and 8,447 challenges from the 2026 season to examine how algorithmic review reshapes umpire judgment and player behavior. We study where umpires placed the effective strike zone boundary, how consistently they applied that boundary, how they responded to overturned calls, and which calls players chose to challenge. In 2026, the effective called boundary shifted toward the automated strike zone beyond the trajectory observed in prior seasons, while the consistency of that boundary largely continued its existing trend. Following an overturned call, umpires temporarily adjusted subsequent decisions near the corrected boundary, although these effects did not consistently persist into the next game. Count dependent variation in calling remained, while differences associated with player status narrowed. Players, meanwhile, left many overturnable calls unchallenged and appeared to base challenge decisions more strongly on immediately observable evidence than on the precise geometry of the automated zone. Together, these findings show that selective AI review does more than correct individual errors. It reshapes human judgment, adaptation, and strategic behavior around an algorithmic authority.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Human-Computer Interaction
Literary Axioms: A Conceptual Framework for Literary Creation, Interpretation, and Evaluation
Who Acts, Who Knows, Who Answers? A Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis of Agency, Epistemic Responsibility, and Accountability in Generative AI Higher Education Research
Beyond Provenance: The Economics and Governance of Personalized AI Memory
What fidelity metrics miss: a structural check on synthetic educational data
Understanding Human Perception of Representation in Citizens' Assemblies: An Empirical Study
Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.