Exploring Cognitive Attributes in Financial Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08849v1
• Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 02:11:46 GMT
• Title: Exploring Cognitive Attributes in Financial Decision-Making
• Authors: Mallika Mainali, Rosina O. Weber,
• Abstract summary: This paper analyzes the literature on cognitive attributes, establishes five criteria for defining them, and categorizes 19 domain-specific cognitive attributes relevant to financial decision-making.<n>It provides a strong basis for developing AI systems that accurately reflect and align with human decision-making processes in financial contexts.
• Score: 0.3237980596781198
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Cognitive attributes are fundamental to metacognition, shaping how individuals process information, evaluate choices, and make decisions. To develop metacognitive artificial intelligence (AI) models that reflect human reasoning, it is essential to account for the attributes that influence reasoning patterns and decision-maker behavior, often leading to different or even conflicting choices. This makes it crucial to incorporate cognitive attributes in designing AI models that align with human decision-making processes, especially in high-stakes domains such as finance, where decisions have significant real-world consequences. However, existing AI alignment research has primarily focused on value alignment, often overlooking the role of individual cognitive attributes that distinguish decision-makers. To address this issue, this paper (1) analyzes the literature on cognitive attributes, (2) establishes five criteria for defining them, and (3) categorizes 19 domain-specific cognitive attributes relevant to financial decision-making. These three components provide a strong basis for developing AI systems that accurately reflect and align with human decision-making processes in financial contexts.

Related papers

• Human Decision-making is Susceptible to AI-driven Manipulation [87.24007555151452]
  AI systems may exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward harmful outcomes.<n>This study examined human susceptibility to such manipulation in financial and emotional decision-making contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T15:56:22Z)
• Mimicking Human Intuition: Cognitive Belief-Driven Q-Learning [5.960184723807347]
  We propose Cognitive Belief-Driven Q-Learning (CBDQ), which integrates subjective belief modeling into the Q-learning framework. CBDQ enhances decision-making accuracy by endowing agents with human-like learning and reasoning capabilities. We evaluate the proposed method on discrete control benchmark tasks in various complicate environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T16:50:29Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Decision Theoretic Foundations for Experiments Evaluating Human Decisions [18.27590643693167]
  We argue that to attribute loss in human performance to forms of bias, an experiment must provide participants with the information that a rational agent would need to identify the utility-maximizing decision. As a demonstration, we evaluate the extent to which recent evaluations of decision-making from the literature on AI-assisted decisions achieve these criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T16:21:37Z)
• From DDMs to DNNs: Using process data and models of decision-making to improve human-AI interactions [1.1510009152620668]
  We argue that artificial intelligence (AI) research would benefit from a stronger focus on insights about how decisions emerge over time. First, we introduce a highly established computational framework that assumes decisions to emerge from the noisy accumulation of evidence. Next, we discuss to what extent current approaches in multi-agent AI do or do not incorporate process data and models of decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T11:27:22Z)
• Designing explainable artificial intelligence with active inference: A framework for transparent introspection and decision-making [0.0]
  We discuss how active inference can be leveraged to design explainable AI systems. We propose an architecture for explainable AI systems using active inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-06T21:38:09Z)
• On solving decision and risk management problems subject to uncertainty [91.3755431537592]
  Uncertainty is a pervasive challenge in decision and risk management. This paper develops a systematic understanding of such strategies, determine their range of application, and develop a framework to better employ them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T19:16:23Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Modeling Human Behavior Part II -- Cognitive approaches and Uncertainty [0.0]
  In Part I, we discussed methods which generate a model of behavior from exploration of the system and feedback based on the exhibited behavior. In this work, we will continue the discussion from the perspective of methods which focus on the assumed cognitive abilities, limitations, and biases demonstrated in human reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-13T07:29:15Z)
• Indecision Modeling [50.00689136829134]
  It is important that AI systems act in ways which align with human values. People are often indecisive, and especially so when their decision has moral implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-15T18:32:37Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.