The multivariate Gaussian distribution underpins myriad operations-research, decision-analytic, and machine-learning models (e.g., Bayesian optimization, Gaussian influence diagrams, and variational autoencoders). However, despite recent advances in adversarial machine learning (AML), inference for Gaussian models in the presence of an adversary is notably understudied. Therefore, we consider a self-interested attacker who wishes to disrupt a decisionmaker's conditional inference and subsequent actions by corrupting a set of evidentiary variables. To avoid detection, the attacker also desires the attack to appear plausible wherein plausibility is determined by the density of the corrupted evidence. We consider white- and grey-box settings such that the attacker has complete and incomplete knowledge about the decisionmaker's underlying multivariate Gaussian distribution, respectively. Select instances are shown to reduce to quadratic and stochastic quadratic programs, and structural properties are derived to inform solution methods. We assess the impact and efficacy of these attacks in three examples, including, real estate evaluation, interest rate estimation and signals processing. Each example leverages an alternative underlying model, thereby highlighting the attacks' broad applicability. Through these applications, we also juxtapose the behavior of the white- and grey-box attacks to understand how uncertainty and structure affect attacker behavior.

Fairness metrics are used to assess discrimination and disparity of the chances between yellow and blue candidates of getting bias in decision-making processes across various domains, including accepted. Intuitively, we are more certain about the decisions machine learning models and human decision-makers in real-world being made by company A than company B. In the case of company applications. This involves calculating the disparities between probabilistic B, the rejection of blue candidates can be attributed to random outcomes among social groups, such as acceptance rates circumstances. In this case, we would judge company A as more discriminatory between male and female applicants. However, traditional fairness than company B because we are more certain that A metrics do not account for the uncertainty in these processes and is unfair and very uncertain about the unfairness of B. But if both lack of comparability when two decision-makers exhibit the same companies accepted all applicants, the disparity would be 0%, and disparity. Using Bayesian statistics, we quantify the uncertainty of we would conversely judge B as more discriminatory than A. This is the disparity to enhance discrimination assessments. We represent because we are certain that A is fair, while we are uncertain about the each decision-maker, whether a machine learning model or a human, fairness of B. Lastly, when comparing between uncertain fair and uncertain by its disparity and the corresponding uncertainty in that disparity.

Due to the importance of artificial intelligence (AI) in a variety of high-stakes decisions, such as loan approval, job hiring, and criminal bail, researchers in Explainable AI (XAI) have developed algorithms to provide users with recourse for an unfavorable outcome. We analyze the incentives for a decision-maker to offer recourse to a set of applicants. Does the decision-maker have the incentive to offer recourse to all rejected applicants? We show that the decision-maker only offers recourse to all applicants in extreme cases, such as when the recourse process is impossible to manipulate. Some applicants may be worse off when the decision-maker can offer recourse.

Artificial intelligence is still a somewhat new technology, but it already has the capacity to offer real-world business outcomes for financial institutions in the form of productivity improvement, cost savings and happier customers. Despite all of AI's potential, banks and credit unions remain cautious when it comes to this technology, mostly because they misunderstand the process, investment and outcome. As experts in banking AI, we know that AI has come a long way and can dispel even the ardent disbeliever. All of these advantages explain why Gartner found that, throughout the COVID-19 crisis, many organizations have actually increased their investments in AI. Yet, banking institutions still want to better understand all the factors at play when making a decision.

In this study, we propose a multicriteria group decision making (MCGDM) algorithm under uncertainty where data is collected as intervals. The proposed MCGDM algorithm aggregates the data, determines the optimal weights for criteria and ranks alternatives with no further input. The intervals give flexibility to experts in assessing alternatives against criteria and provide an opportunity to gain maximum information. We also propose a novel method to aggregate expert judgements using cloud models. We introduce an experimental approach to check the validity of the aggregation method. After that, we use the aggregation method for an MCGDM problem. Here, we find the optimal weights for each criterion by proposing a bilevel optimisation model. Then, we extend the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) for data based on cloud models to prioritise alternatives. As a result, the algorithm can gain information from decision makers with different levels of uncertainty and examine alternatives with no more information from decision-makers. The proposed MCGDM algorithm is implemented on a case study of a cybersecurity problem to illustrate its feasibility and effectiveness. The results verify the robustness and validity of the proposed MCGDM using sensitivity analysis and comparison with other existing algorithms.

Remember when Kodak dominated the consumer film industry? When digital came along, Kodak's leadership made the fateful decision to double down on celluloid film instead of going all-in on digital. With the benefits of hindsight, we know now that that decision was the beginning of the end for the company's dominance. Think of all the one-off decisions that led up to that grand strategic misfire. When you run a business or manage a team, decisionmaking comes with the territory – who to hire, which ideas to pursue, how much money to allocate to each department, which products to greenlight.