Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 | Total: 6
Information systems (IS) are frequently designed to leverage the negative effect of anchoring bias to influence individuals' decision-making (e.g., by manipulating purchase decisions). Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the explanations of its decisions through explainable AI (XAI) have opened new opportunities for mitigating biased decisions. So far, the potential of these technological advances to overcome anchoring bias remains widely unclear. To this end, we conducted two online experiments with a total of N=390 participants in the context of purchase decisions to examine the impact of AI and XAI-based decision support on anchoring bias. Our results show that AI alone and its combination with XAI help to mitigate the negative effect of anchoring bias. Ultimately, our findings have implications for the design of AI and XAI-based decision support and IS to overcome cognitive biases.
This paper explores the application of AI and NLP techniques for user feedback analysis in the context of heavy machine crane products. By leveraging AI and NLP, organizations can gain insights into customer perceptions, improve product development, enhance satisfaction and loyalty, inform decision-making, and gain a competitive advantage. The paper highlights the impact of user feedback analysis on organizational performance and emphasizes the reasons for using AI and NLP, including scalability, objectivity, improved accuracy, increased insights, and time savings. The methodology involves data collection, cleaning, text and rating analysis, interpretation, and feedback implementation. Results include sentiment analysis, word cloud visualizations, and radar charts comparing product attributes. These findings provide valuable information for understanding customer sentiment, identifying improvement areas, and making data-driven decisions to enhance the customer experience. In conclusion, promising AI and NLP techniques in user feedback analysis offer organizations a powerful tool to understand customers, improve product development, increase satisfaction, and drive business success
We study law enforcement guided by data-informed predictions of "hot spots" for likely criminal offenses. Such "predictive" enforcement could lead to data being selectively and disproportionately collected from neighborhoods targeted for enforcement by the prediction. Predictive enforcement that fails to account for this endogenous "datafication" may lead to the over-policing of traditionally high-crime neighborhoods and performs poorly, in particular, in some cases as poorly as if no data were used. Endogenizing the incentives for criminal offenses identifies additional deterrence benefits from the informationally efficient use of data.
Many algorithms have a disparate impact in that their benefits or harms fall disproportionately on certain social groups. Addressing an algorithm's disparate impact can be challenging, however, because it is not always clear whether there exists an alternative more-fair algorithm that does not compromise on other key objectives such as accuracy or profit. Establishing the improvability of algorithms with respect to multiple criteria is of both conceptual and practical interest: in many settings, disparate impact that would otherwise be prohibited under US federal law is permissible if it is necessary to achieve a legitimate business interest. The question is how a policy maker can formally substantiate, or refute, this necessity defense. In this paper, we provide an econometric framework for testing the hypothesis that it is possible to improve on the fairness of an algorithm without compromising on other pre-specified objectives. Our proposed test is simple to implement and can incorporate any exogenous constraint on the algorithm space. We establish the large-sample validity and consistency of our test, and demonstrate its use empirically by evaluating a healthcare algorithm originally considered by Obermeyer et al. (2019). In this demonstration, we find strong statistically significant evidence that it is possible to reduce the algorithm's disparate impact without compromising on the accuracy of its predictions.
In this paper we propose a class of structural vector autoregressions (SVARs) characterized by structural breaks (SVAR-WB). Together with standard restrictions on the parameters and on functions of them, we also consider constraints across the different regimes. Such constraints can be either (a) in the form of stability restrictions, indicating that not all the parameters or impulse responses are subject to structural changes, or (b) in terms of inequalities regarding particular characteristics of the SVAR-WB across the regimes. We show that all these kinds of restrictions provide benefits in terms of identification. We derive conditions for point and set identification of the structural parameters of the SVAR-WB, mixing equality, sign, rank and stability restrictions, as well as constraints on forecast error variances (FEVs). As point identification, when achieved, holds locally but not globally, there will be a set of isolated structural parameters that are observationally equivalent in the parametric space. In this respect, both common frequentist and Bayesian approaches produce unreliable inference as the former focuses on just one of these observationally equivalent points, while for the latter on a non-vanishing sensitivity to the prior. To overcome these issues, we propose alternative approaches for estimation and inference that account for all admissible observationally equivalent structural parameters. Moreover, we develop a pure Bayesian and a robust Bayesian approach for doing inference in set-identified SVAR-WBs. Both the theory of identification and inference are illustrated through a set of examples and an empirical application on the transmission of US monetary policy over the great inflation and great moderation regimes.
In economic program evaluation, it is common to obtain panel data in which outcomes are indicators that an individual has reached an absorbing state. For example, they may indicate whether an individual has exited a period of unemployment, passed an exam, left a marriage, or had their parole revoked. The parallel trends assumption that underpins difference-in-differences generally fails in such settings. We suggest identifying conditions that are analogous to those of difference-in-differences but apply to hazard rates rather than mean outcomes. These alternative assumptions motivate estimators that retain the simplicity and transparency of standard diff-in-diff, and we suggest analogous specification tests. Our approach can be adapted to general linear restrictions between the hazard rates of different groups, motivating duration analogues of the triple differences and synthetic control methods. We apply our procedures to examine the impact of a policy that increased the generosity of unemployment benefits, using a cross-cohort comparison.