Source author record

Dillon Bowen

Dillon Bowen appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

econ.EM econ.GN Machine Learning Methodology q-fin.EC

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

5topics

1close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

Bayesian ranking and selection with applications to field studies, economic mobility, and forecasting

Decision-making often involves ranking and selection. For example, to assemble a team of political forecasters, we might begin by narrowing our choice set to the candidates we are confident rank among the top 10% in forecasting ability. Unfortunately, we do not know each candidate's true ability but observe a noisy estimate of it. This paper develops new Bayesian algorithms to rank and select candidates based on noisy estimates. Using simulations based on empirical data, we show that our algorithms often outperform frequentist ranking and selection algorithms. Our Bayesian ranking algorithms yield shorter rank confidence intervals while maintaining approximately correct coverage. Our Bayesian selection algorithms select more candidates while maintaining correct error rates. We apply our ranking and selection procedures to field experiments, economic mobility, forecasting, and similar problems. Finally, we implement our ranking and selection techniques in a user-friendly Python package documented here: https://dsbowen-conditional-inference.readthedocs.io/en/latest/.

preprint2022arXiv

Simple models predict behavior at least as well as behavioral scientists

How accurately can behavioral scientists predict behavior? To answer this question, we analyzed data from five studies in which 640 professional behavioral scientists predicted the results of one or more behavioral science experiments. We compared the behavioral scientists' predictions to random chance, linear models, and simple heuristics like "behavioral interventions have no effect" and "all published psychology research is false." We find that behavioral scientists are consistently no better than - and often worse than - these simple heuristics and models. Behavioral scientists' predictions are not only noisy but also biased. They systematically overestimate how well behavioral science "works": overestimating the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, the impact of psychological phenomena like time discounting, and the replicability of published psychology research.

preprint2020arXiv

Generalized SHAP: Generating multiple types of explanations in machine learning

Many important questions about a model cannot be answered just by explaining how much each feature contributes to its output. To answer a broader set of questions, we generalize a popular, mathematically well-grounded explanation technique, Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Our new method - Generalized Shapley Additive Explanations (G-SHAP) - produces many additional types of explanations, including: 1) General classification explanations; Why is this sample more likely to belong to one class rather than another? 2) Intergroup differences; Why do our model's predictions differ between groups of observations? 3) Model failure; Why does our model perform poorly on a given sample? We formally define these types of explanations and illustrate their practical use on real data.