Impact of correlated information on pioneering decisions
Impact of correlated information on pioneering decisions
复制标题
相关信息对开拓性决策的影响
DOI：
10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033020
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Karamched, Bhargav R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stickler, Megan;Ott, William;Kilpatrick, Zachary P.;Josić, Krešimir;Karamched, Bhargav R.
规范模型通常用于描述人类和动物如何做出决策。这些模型将审议视为不确定证据的积累，最终以选择的承诺结束。当扩展到社会群体时，这些模型通常假设个人进行独立观察。然而，个人通常从共同的来源收集证据，他们的观察很少是独立的。在这里，我们问：对于一组不交换信息的理想观察者，相关证据对决策准确性的影响是什么？我们发现，即使当代理是相同的，相关的证据导致决策的准确性依赖于时间的决策顺序。第一个决策者比一个单独的观察者更不准确，而早决策者比晚决策者更不准确。尽管理性的观察者使用相同的决策标准，因此他们对自己的决策同样有信心，但这些现象还是发生了。我们分析了离散和宏观的证据收集模型，以解释为什么第一个决策者是不准确的比一个孤独的观察者时，证据是相关的。使用多数规则汇集早期决策者的决策并不能挽救准确性，只能获得适度的准确性增益。虽然我们分析的是一个理想化的模型，但我们相信，我们的分析提供的见解并不完全取决于群体如何整合证据和形成决策。
Normative models are often used to describe how humans and animals make decisions. These models treat deliberation as the accumulation of uncertain evidence that terminates with a commitment to a choice. When extended to social groups, such models often assume that individuals make independent observations. However, individuals typically gather evidence from common sources, and their observations are rarely independent. Here we ask: For a group of ideal observers who do not exchange information, what is the impact of correlated evidence on decision accuracy? We show that even when agents are identical, correlated evidence causes decision accuracy to depend on temporal decision order. The first decider is less accurate than a lone observer, and early deciders are less accurate than late deciders. These phenomena occur despite the fact that the rational observers use the same decision criterion, so they are equally confident in their decisions. We analyze discrete and macroscopic evidence-gathering models to explain why the first decider is less accurate than a lone observer when evidence is correlated. Pooling the decisions of early deciders using a majority rule does not rescue accuracy results in only a modest accuracy gain. Although we analyze an idealized model, we believe that our analysis offers insights that do not depend on exactly how groups integrate evidence and form decisions.
登录
查看更多内容
群体的智慧与暴民的疯狂：偏见、两极分化和集体智慧面临的其他挑战的进化模型
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
Collective Intelligence
影响因子：
--
作者：
A. Lo;Ruixun Zhang
通讯作者：
Ruixun Zhang
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
M. Usher;James L. McClelland
通讯作者：
M. Usher;James L. McClelland
二维相关扩散过程的封闭式解系列。
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
H. Shan;R. Moreno;Jan Drugowitsch
通讯作者：
Jan Drugowitsch
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Mensi, Walid;Beljid, Makram;Managi, Shunsuke
通讯作者：
Managi, Shunsuke