Overview
I am a third-year PhD student in Behavioral Science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Before that I studied public policy at the Harris School of Public Policy.
I study the role of uncertainty in judgment and decision making, across domains with explicit uncertainty (gambles, betting) and implicit uncertainty (multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice). Theoretically, I aim to understand the process by which uncertainty is integrated into decisions. Methodologically, I am interested in the elicitation of uncertainty and the application of different elicitation formats.
I apply these pursuits to choice anomalies, sports betting and prediction markets, and investment decisions, with an eye toward implications for policy and consumer protection.
Papers
Publications
-
Estimating the Threat of AI-agent Responding Across Online Survey Platforms
Abstract
Recent research and advances in LLMs have led to widespread concern that AI agents could pose as human online survey-takers. However, it remains unclear how prevalent AI agents are on these platforms and how to effectively detect AI agents. We validated a series of AI detection tests that effectively separated verified-human participants from three AI agents (designed using various prompts). Using these tests, we collected surveys on seven online platforms and find high variance in rates of participants failing AI tests, ranging from 6% to 41% across platforms (compared to a 2.4% in-person human false-positive rate). We demonstrate that undetected AI agents can impact the results of online surveys. Our findings suggest that while there is an urgent need for AI detection tests and consistent, systematic monitoring of data quality on online platforms, currently some platforms seem to provide data with a low rate of AI agents.
Working papers
-
Decisions under Risk Are Decisions under Complexity: Comment
Abstract
Oprea argued that prospect theory’s risk attitudes reflect “complexity” rather than underlying risk preferences. A re-analysis reveals that this claim is driven by measurement error caused by a confusing experimental design. Participants valued risky lotteries and riskless “mirrors” similarly, but this was largely due to the 75% who failed comprehension checks. These subjects had noisy valuations and frequent dominance violations, which artifactually produce a fourfold pattern, loss aversion, and positive correlation between mirrors and lotteries. In contrast, participants who likely understood the task valued mirrors at expected value and lotteries in line with prospect theory.
Work in progress
- “Attention, Uncertainty, and the Attraction Decoy Effect”
CV
Contact
- [email]
- Office
- [Building, Room] · [Street Address] · Chicago, IL 60637
- Elsewhere
- Google Scholar · GitHub · LinkedIn
Personal
I do other things, as well: I boulder, cook, backpack, and play board games.
These are a few of my favorite things
- Bouldering hold
- Crimp
- Dish
- Beef rendang
- National park
- Mount Rainier
- Board game
- The Quacks of Quedlinburg
Oh, and I grew up in Sacramento.