Researcher profile

Dillon Bowen

Dillon Bowen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
5topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

3 published item(s)

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.