Societies often rely on human experts to take a wide variety of decisions affecting their members, from jail-or-release decisions taken by judges and stop-and-frisk decisions taken by police officers to accept-or-reject decisions taken by academics. In this context, each decision is taken by an expert who is typically chosen uniformly at random from a pool of experts. However, these decisions may be imperfect due to limited experience, implicit biases, or faulty probabilistic reasoning. Can we improve the accuracy and fairness of the overall decision making process by optimizing the assignment between experts and decisions? In this paper, we address the above problem from the perspective of sequential decision making and show that, for different fairness notions from the literature, it reduces to a sequence of (constrained) weighted bipartite matchings, which can be solved efficiently using algorithms with approximation guarantees. Moreover, these algorithms also benefit from posterior sampling to actively trade off exploitation---selecting expert assignments which lead to accurate and fair decisions---and exploration---selecting expert assignments to learn about the experts' preferences and biases. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithms on both synthetic and real-world data and show that they can significantly improve both the accuracy and fairness of the decisions taken by pools of experts.

Responsible AI demands systems whose behavioral tendencies can be effectively measured, audited, and adjusted to prevent inadvertently nudging users toward risky decisions or embedding hidden biases in risk aversion. As language models (LMs) are increasingly incorporated into AI-driven decision support systems, understanding their risk behaviors is crucial for their responsible deployment. This study investigates the manipulability of risk aversion (MoRA) in LMs, examining their ability to replicate human risk preferences across diverse economic scenarios, with a focus on gender-specific attitudes, uncertainty, role-based decision-making, and the manipulability of risk aversion. The results indicate that while LMs such as DeepSeek Reasoner and Gemini-2.0-flash-lite exhibit some alignment with human behaviors, notable discrepancies highlight the need to refine bio-centric measures of manipulability. These findings suggest directions for refining AI design to better align human and AI risk preferences and enhance ethical decision-making. The study calls for further advancements in model design to ensure that AI systems more accurately replicate human risk preferences, thereby improving their effectiveness in risk management contexts. This approach could enhance the applicability of AI assistants in managing risk.

We study whether language models (LMs) exhibit future- versus present-oriented preferences in intertemporal choice and whether those preferences can be systematically manipulated. Using adapted human experimental protocols, we evaluate multiple LMs on time-tradeoff tasks and benchmark them against a sample of human decision makers. We introduce an operational metric, the Manipulability of Time Orientation (MTO), defined as the change in an LM's revealed time preference between future- and present-oriented prompts. In our tests, reasoning-focused models (e.g., DeepSeek-Reasoner and grok-3-mini) choose later options under future-oriented prompts but only partially personalize decisions across identities or geographies. Moreover, models that correctly reason about time orientation internalize a future orientation for themselves as AI decision makers. We discuss design implications for AI assistants that should align with heterogeneous, long-horizon goals and outline a research agenda on personalized contextual calibration and socially aware deployment.

Identifying bias in LLMs is ongoing. Because they are still in development, what is true today may be false tomorrow. We therefore need general strategies for debiasing that will outlive current models. Strategies developed for debiasing human decision making offer one promising approach as they incorporate an LLM-style prompt intervention designed to bring latent knowledge into awareness during decision making. LLMs trained on vast amounts of information contain information about potential biases, counter-arguments, and contradictory evidence, but that information may only be brought to bear if prompted. Metacognitive prompts developed in the human decision making literature are designed to achieve this, and as I demonstrate here, they show promise with LLMs. The prompt I focus on here is "could you be wrong?" Following an LLM response, this prompt leads LLMs to produce additional information, including why they answered as they did, errors, biases, contradictory evidence, and alternatives, none of which were apparent in their initial response. Indeed, this metaknowledge often reveals that how LLMs and users interpret prompts are not aligned. Here I demonstrate this prompt using a set of questions taken from recent articles about LLM biases, including implicit discriminatory biases and failures of metacognition. "Could you be wrong" prompts the LLM to identify its own biases and produce cogent metacognitive reflection. I also present another example involving convincing but incomplete information, which is readily corrected by the metacognitive prompt. In sum, this work argues that human psychology offers a new avenue for prompt engineering, leveraging a long history of effective prompt-based improvements to human decision making.

As the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models improves, workflows in which human and AI model-based judgments are combined to make decisions are sought in medicine, finance, and other domains. Though statistical models often make more accurate predictions than human experts on average [Ægisdóttir et al., 2006, Grove et al., 2000, Meehl, 1954], whenever humans have access to additional information over the AI, there is potential to achieve complementary performance by pairing the two, i.e., better performance than either the human or AI alone. For example, a physician may have access to additional information that may not be captured in tabular electronic health records or other structured data [Alur et al., 2024b]. However, evidence of complementary performance between humans and AI is limited, with many studies showing that human-AI teams underperform an AI alone [Buçinca et al., 2020, Bussone et al., 2015, Green and Chen, 2019, Jacobs et al., 2021, Lai and Tan, 2019, Vaccaro and Waldo, 2019, Kononenko, 2001]. A solid understanding of such results is limited by the fact that most analyses of human-AI decision-making focus on ranking the performance of human-AI teams or each individually using measures like posthoc decision accuracy.

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.

Fairness in both machine learning (ML) predictions and human decisions is critical, with ML models prone to algorithmic and data bias, and human decisions affected by subjectivity and cognitive bias. This study investigates fairness using a real-world university admission dataset with 870 profiles, leveraging three ML models, namely XGB, Bi-LSTM, and KNN. Textual features are encoded with BERT embeddings. For individual fairness, we assess decision consistency among experts with varied backgrounds and ML models, using a consistency score. Results show ML models outperform humans in fairness by 14.08% to 18.79%. For group fairness, we propose a gender-debiasing pipeline and demonstrate its efficacy in removing gender-specific language without compromising prediction performance. Post-debiasing, all models maintain or improve their classification accuracy, validating the hypothesis that fairness and performance can coexist. Our findings highlight ML's potential to enhance fairness in admissions while maintaining high accuracy, advocating a hybrid approach combining human judgement and ML models.

Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the ``black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them.