Recent advances in mathematical reasoning and the long-term planning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have precipitated the development of agents, which are being increasingly leveraged in business operations processes. Decision models to optimize inventory levels are one of the core elements of operations management. However, the capabilities of the LLM agent in making inventory decisions in uncertain contexts, as well as the decision-making biases (e.g. framing effect, etc.) of the agent, remain largely unexplored. This prompts concerns regarding the capacity of LLM agents to effectively address real-world problems, as well as the potential implications of biases that may be present. To address this gap, we introduce AIM-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to assess the decision-making behaviour of LLM agents in uncertain supply chain management scenarios through a diverse series of inventory replenishment experiments. Our results reveal that different LLMs typically exhibit varying degrees of decision bias that are similar to those observed in human beings. In addition, we explored strategies to mitigate the pull-to-centre effect and the bullwhip effect, namely cognitive reflection and implementation of information sharing. These findings underscore the need for careful consideration of the potential biases in deploying LLMs in Inventory decision-making scenarios. We hope that these insights will pave the way for mitigating human decision bias and developing human-centred decision support systems for supply chains.

Exemplar-Free Class-Incremental Learning (EFCIL) aims to sequentially learn from distinct categories without retaining exemplars but easily suffers from catastrophic forgetting of learned knowledge. While existing EFCIL methods leverage knowledge distillation to alleviate forgetting, they still face two critical challenges: semantic shift and decision bias. Specifically, the embeddings of old tasks shift in the embedding space after learning new tasks, and the classifier becomes biased towards new tasks due to training solely with new data, thereby hindering the balance between old and new knowledge. To address these issues, we propose the Dual-Projection Shift Estimation and Classifier Reconstruction (DPCR) approach for EFCIL. DPCR effectively estimates semantic shift through a dual-projection, which combines a learnable transformation with a row-space projection to capture both task-wise and category-wise shifts. Furthermore, to mitigate decision bias, DPCR employs ridge regression to reformulate classifier training as a reconstruction process. This reconstruction exploits previous information encoded in covariance and prototype of each class after calibration with estimated shift, thereby reducing decision bias. Extensive experiments demonstrate that, across various datasets, DPCR effectively balances old and new tasks, outperforming state-of-the-art EFCIL methods.

Biased human decisions have consequential impacts across various domains, yielding unfair treatment of individuals and resulting in suboptimal outcomes for organizations and society. In recognition of this fact, organizations regularly design and deploy interventions aimed at mitigating these biases. However, measuring human decision biases remains an important but elusive task. Organizations are frequently concerned with mistaken decisions disproportionately affecting one group. In practice, however, this is typically not possible to assess due to the scarcity of a gold standard: a label that indicates what the correct decision would have been. In this work, we propose a machine learning-based framework to assess bias in human-generated decisions when gold standard labels are scarce. We provide theoretical guarantees and empirical evidence demonstrating the superiority of our method over existing alternatives. This proposed methodology establishes a foundation for transparency in human decision-making, carrying substantial implications for managerial duties, and offering potential for alleviating algorithmic biases when human decisions are used as labels to train algorithms.

Large language models (LLMs) can pass explicit bias tests but still harbor implicit biases, similar to humans who endorse egalitarian beliefs yet exhibit subtle biases. Measuring such implicit biases can be a challenge: as LLMs become increasingly proprietary, it may not be possible to access their embeddings and apply existing bias measures; furthermore, implicit biases are primarily a concern if they affect the actual decisions that these systems make. We address both of these challenges by introducing two measures of bias inspired by psychology: LLM Implicit Association Test (IAT) Bias, which is a prompt-based method for revealing implicit bias; and LLM Decision Bias for detecting subtle discrimination in decision-making tasks. Using these measures, we found pervasive human-like stereotype biases in 6 LLMs across 4 social domains (race, gender, religion, health) and 21 categories (weapons, guilt, science, career among others). Our prompt-based measure of implicit bias correlates with embedding-based methods but better predicts downstream behaviors measured by LLM Decision Bias. This measure is based on asking the LLM to decide between individuals, motivated by psychological results indicating that relative not absolute evaluations are more related to implicit biases. Using prompt-based measures informed by psychology allows us to effectively expose nuanced biases and subtle discrimination in proprietary LLMs that do not show explicit bias on standard benchmarks.

Recent advances in federated learning (FL) enable collaborative training of machine learning (ML) models from large-scale and widely dispersed clients while protecting their privacy. However, when different clients' datasets are heterogeneous, traditional FL mechanisms produce a global model that does not adequately represent the poorer clients with limited data resources, resulting in lower accuracy and higher bias on their local data. According to the Matthew effect, which describes how the advantaged gain more advantage and the disadvantaged lose more over time, deploying such a global model in client applications may worsen the resource disparity among the clients and harm the principles of social welfare and fairness. To mitigate the Matthew effect, we propose Egalitarian Fairness Federated Learning (EFFL), where egalitarian fairness refers to the global model learned from FL has: (1) equal accuracy among clients; (2) equal decision bias among clients. Besides achieving egalitarian fairness among the clients, EFFL also aims for performance optimality, minimizing the empirical risk loss and the bias for each client; both are essential for any ML model training, whether centralized or decentralized. We formulate EFFL as a constrained multi-constrained multi-objectives optimization (MCMOO) problem, with the decision bias and egalitarian fairness as constraints and the minimization of the empirical risk losses on all clients as multiple objectives to be optimized. We propose a gradient-based three-stage algorithm to obtain the Pareto optimal solutions within the constraint space. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EFFL outperforms other state-of-the-art FL algorithms in achieving a high-performance global model with enhanced egalitarian fairness among all clients.

Imbalanced Learning (IL) is an important problem that widely exists in data mining applications. Typical IL methods utilize intuitive class-wise resampling or reweighting to directly balance the training set. However, some recent research efforts in specific domains show that class-imbalanced learning can be achieved without class-wise manipulation. This prompts us to think about the relationship between the two different IL strategies and the nature of the class imbalance. Fundamentally, they correspond to two essential imbalances that exist in IL: the difference in quantity between examples from different classes as well as between easy and hard examples within a single class, i.e., inter-class and intra-class imbalance. Existing works fail to explicitly take both imbalances into account and thus suffer from suboptimal performance. In light of this, we present Duple-Balanced Ensemble, namely DUBE , a versatile ensemble learning framework. Unlike prevailing methods, DUBE directly performs inter-class and intra-class balancing without relying on heavy distance-based computation, which allows it to achieve competitive performance while being computationally efficient. We also present a detailed discussion and analysis about the pros and cons of different inter/intra-class balancing strategies based on DUBE . Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Code and examples are available at https://github.com/ICDE2022Sub/duplebalance.

Accurately predicting the outcome of sporting events has been a goal for many groups who seek to maximize profit. What makes this challenging is that the outcome of an event can be influenced by many factors that dynamically change across time. Oddsmakers attempt to estimate these factors by using both algorithmic and subjective methods to set the spread. However, it is well-known that both human and algorithmic decision-making can be biased, so this paper explores if oddsmaker biases can be used in an exploitative manner, in order to improve the prediction of NFL game outcomes. Real-world gambling data was used to train and test different predictive models under varying assumptions. The results show that methods that leverage oddsmaker biases in an exploitative manner perform best under the conditions tested in this paper. These findings suggest that leveraging human and algorithmic decision biases in an exploitative manner may be useful for predicting the outcomes of competitive events, and could lead to increased profit for those who have financial interest in the outcomes.

We all know that machine learning offers unprecedented efficiency and accuracy in analyzing data to make predictions, recommend actions, and automate simple tasks. But, machine learning delivers an additional benefit that, while less widely discussed, is every bit as vital: objectivity. No matter how vigorously we strive to remain objective, every human decision is subject to cognitive biases, limitations on the thinking process that lead to flawed judgments. With machine learning, organizations can remove -- or at least lessen the impact of -- the bias factor in business intelligence, ensuring that all information is accurately considered and weighted to produce an optimal outcome, every single time. In an ideal business world, workers would approach each decision by examining all the available information and drawing the most logical conclusion.