Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring
Bayesian inference provides a unifying framework for addressing problems in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and robotics, as well as the problems facing the human mind. Unfortunately, exact Bayesian inference is intractable in all but the simplest models. Therefore minds and machines have to approximate Bayesian inference. Approximate inference algorithms can achieve a wide range of time-accuracy tradeoffs, but what is the optimal tradeoff? We investigate time-accuracy tradeoffs using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm as a metaphor for the mind's inference algorithm(s). We find that reasonably accurate decisions are possible long before the Markov chain has converged to the posterior distribution, i.e. during the period known as burn-in. Therefore the strategy that is optimal subject to the mind's bounded processing speed and opportunity costs may perform so few iterations that the resulting samples are biased towards the initial value. The resulting cognitive process model provides a rational basis for the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. The model's quantitative predictions are tested against published data on anchoring in numerical estimation tasks. Our theoretical and empirical results suggest that the anchoring bias is consistent with approximate Bayesian inference.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Bayesian InferenceMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Anchoring Theory in Sequential Stackelberg Games
An underlying assumption of Stackelberg Games (SGs) is perfect rationality of the players. However, in real-life situations (which are often modeled by SGs) the followers (terrorists, thieves, poachers or smugglers) -- a…
Evolutionary AlgorithmsCognitive Biases in Large Language Models for News Recommendation
Despite large language models (LLMs) increasingly becoming important components of news recommender systems, employing LLMs in such systems introduces new risks, such as the influence of cognitive biases in LLMs. Cogniti…
Data AugmentationMisinformationNews RecommendationPrompt Engineering+1LLM economicus? Mapping the Behavioral Biases of LLMs via Utility Theory
Humans are not homo economicus (i.e., rational economic beings). As humans, we exhibit systematic behavioral biases such as loss aversion, anchoring, framing, etc., which lead us to make suboptimal economic decisions. In…
Decision MakingCalibrating Behavioral Parameters with Large Language Models
Behavioral parameters such as loss aversion, herding, and extrapolation are central to asset pricing models but remain difficult to measure reliably. We develop a framework that treats large language models (LLMs) as cal…
Overcoming Anchoring Bias: The Potential of AI and XAI-based Decision Support
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 Intel…
Decision Making