Debiased Inference for AI-Generated Data without Gold-Standard Labels: Identification via Multiple Imperfect Measurements

An increasing number of scholars use AI to measure variables they subsequently include in downstream analyses. Although AI-measured variables are often analyzed as if observed without error, ignoring prediction errors in automated measurement leads to substantial bias and invalid confidence intervals in downstream analyses, even if AI measurement accuracy is high, e.g., above 90%. Existing solutions, such as design-based supervised learning and prediction-powered inference, combine error-prone AI-based measurements with gold-standard labels, which may be costly and difficult to obtain in some application areas. In this paper, we propose debiased inference with multiple imperfect measurements (DMM), a framework that combines multiple error-prone AI measurements to enable valid downstream inference without gold-standard labels. Building on the established results on CP decomposition, DMM assumes that these measurements are independent conditional on the latent true label and observed unit-level features, such as text features represented by embeddings. This framework allows for unknown misclassification rates to vary across annotation methods (e.g., large language models) and across units of annotation (e.g., texts). Under this assumption, we use semiparametric inference theory to prove that the DMM estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal, enabling valid inference for a wide range of downstream statistical analyses common in the social sciences. Our simulation results show that DMM yields valid inference and that adding accurate, though imperfect, measurements can improve efficiency. Focusing on common applications of large language model annotations, we also develop diagnostics to assess the conditional independence assumption.

Does AI help humans make better decisions? A methodological framework for experimental evaluation

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based on data-driven algorithms has become ubiquitous in today's society. Yet, in many cases and especially when stakes are high, humans still make final decisions. The critical question, therefore, is whether AI helps humans make better decisions as compared to a human alone or AI an alone. We introduce a new methodological framework that can be used to answer experimentally this question with no additional assumptions. We measure a decision maker's ability to make correct decisions using standard classification metrics based on the baseline potential outcome. We consider a single-blinded experimental design, in which the provision of AI-generated recommendations is randomized across cases with a human making final decisions. Under this experimental design, we show how to compare the performance of three alternative decision-making systems--human-alone, human-with-AI, and AI-alone. We apply the proposed methodology to the data from our own randomized controlled trial of a pretrial risk assessment instrument. We find that AI recommendations do not improve the classification accuracy of a judge's decision to impose cash bail. Our analysis also shows that AI-alone decisions generally perform worse than human decisions with or without AI assistance. Finally, AI recommendations tend to impose cash bail on non-white arrestees more often than necessary when compared to white arrestees.