اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدOn Modeling Human Perceptions of Allocation Policies with Uncertain Outcomes
342
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Many policies allocate harms or benefits that are uncertain in nature: they produce distributions over the population in which individuals have different probabilities of incurring harm or benefit. Comparing different policies thus involves a comparison of their corresponding probability distributions, and we observe that in many instances the policies selected in practice are hard to explain by preferences based only on the expected value of the total harm or benefit they produce. In cases where the expected value analysis is not a sufficient explanatory framework, what would be a reasonable model for societal preferences over these distributions? Here we investigate explanations based on the framework of probability weighting from the behavioral sciences, which over several decades has identified systematic biases in how people perceive probabilities. We show that probability weighting can be used to make predictions about preferences over probabilistic distributions of harm and benefit that function quite differently from expected-value analysis, and in a number of cases provide potential explanations for policy preferences that appear hard to motivate by other means. In particular, we identify optimal policies for minimizing perceived total harm and maximizing perceived total benefit that take the distorting effects of probability weighting into account, and we discuss a number of real-world policies that resemble such allocational strategies. Our analysis does not provide specific recommendations for policy choices, but is instead fundamentally interpretive in nature, seeking to describe observed phenomena in policy choices.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
How to attribute responsibility for autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) systems actions has been widely debated across the humanities and social science disciplines. This work presents two experiments ($N$=200 each) that measure peoples perceptio
ns of eight different notions of moral responsibility concerning AI and human agents in the context of bail decision-making. Using real-life adapted vignettes, our experiments show that AI agents are held causally responsible and blamed similarly to human agents for an identical task. However, there was a meaningful difference in how people perceived these agents moral responsibility; human agents were ascribed to a higher degree of present-looking and forward-looking notions of responsibility than AI agents. We also found that people expect both AI and human decision-makers and advisors to justify their decisions regardless of their nature. We discuss policy and HCI implications of these findings, such as the need for explainable AI in high-stakes scenarios.
Algorithmic fairness research has traditionally been linked to the disciplines of philosophy, ethics, and economics, where notions of fairness are prescriptive and seek objectivity. Increasingly, however, scholars are turning to the study of what dif
ferent people perceive to be fair, and how these perceptions can or should help to shape the design of machine learning, particularly in the policy realm. The present work experimentally explores five novel research questions at the intersection of the Who, What, and How of fairness perceptions. Specifically, we present the results of a multi-factor conjoint analysis study that quantifies the effects of the specific context in which a question is asked, the framing of the given question, and who is answering it. Our results broadly suggest that the Who and What, at least, matter in ways that are 1) not easily explained by any one theoretical perspective, 2) have critical implications for how perceptions of fairness should be measured and/or integrated into algorithmic decision-making systems.
This project examined perceptions of the vegan lifestyle using surveys and social media to explore barriers to choosing veganism. A survey of 510 individuals indicated that non-vegans did not believe veganism was as healthy or difficult as vegans. In
a second analysis, Instagram posts using #vegan suggest content is aimed primarily at the female vegan community. Finally, sentiment analysis of roughly 5 million Twitter posts mentioning vegan found veganism to be portrayed in a more positive light compared to other topics. Results suggest non-vegans lack of interest in veganism is driven by non-belief in the health benefits of the diet.
Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are expected to strengthen the public confidence in the correctness of an election outcome. We hypothesize that this is not always the case, in part because for large margins between the winner and the runner-up, the numbe
r of ballots to be drawn can be so small that voters lose confidence. We conduct a user study with 105 participants resident in the US. Our findings confirm the hypothesis, showing that our study participants felt less confident when they were told the number of ballots audited for RLAs. We elaborate on our findings and propose recommendations for future use of RLAs.
This paper is about index policies for minimizing (frequentist) regret in a stochastic multi-armed bandit model, inspired by a Bayesian view on the problem. Our main contribution is to prove that the Bayes-UCB algorithm, which relies on quantiles of
posterior distributions, is asymptotically optimal when the reward distributions belong to a one-dimensional exponential family, for a large class of prior distributions. We also show that the Bayesian literature gives new insight on what kind of exploration rates could be used in frequentist, UCB-type algorithms. Indeed, approximations of the Bayesian optimal solution or the Finite Horizon Gittins indices provide a justification for the kl-UCB+ and kl-UCB-H+ algorithms, whose asymptotic optimality is also established.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
