Degrees of individual and groupwise backward and forward responsibility
in extensive-form games with ambiguity, and their application to social
choice problems
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07352v1
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:19:13 GMT
- Title: Degrees of individual and groupwise backward and forward responsibility
in extensive-form games with ambiguity, and their application to social
choice problems
- Authors: Jobst Heitzig and Sarah Hiller
- Abstract summary: We present several different quantitative responsibility metrics that assess responsibility degrees in units of probability.
We use a framework based on an adapted version of extensive-form game trees and an axiomatic approach.
We find that while most properties one might desire of such responsibility metrics can be fulfilled by some variant, an optimal metric that clearly outperforms others has yet to be found.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Many real-world situations of ethical relevance, in particular those of
large-scale social choice such as mitigating climate change, involve not only
many agents whose decisions interact in complicated ways, but also various
forms of uncertainty, including quantifiable risk and unquantifiable ambiguity.
In such problems, an assessment of individual and groupwise moral
responsibility for ethically undesired outcomes or their responsibility to
avoid such is challenging and prone to the risk of under- or overdetermination
of responsibility. In contrast to existing approaches based on strict causation
or certain deontic logics that focus on a binary classification of
`responsible' vs `not responsible', we here present several different
quantitative responsibility metrics that assess responsibility degrees in units
of probability. For this, we use a framework based on an adapted version of
extensive-form game trees and an axiomatic approach that specifies a number of
potentially desirable properties of such metrics, and then test the developed
candidate metrics by their application to a number of paradigmatic social
choice situations. We find that while most properties one might desire of such
responsibility metrics can be fulfilled by some variant, an optimal metric that
clearly outperforms others has yet to be found.
Related papers
- Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding [56.61738581796362]
We show that we can still give meaningful bounds on treatment rates to high-risk individuals, even when entirely eliminating or relaxing the assumption that all relevant risk factors are observed.
This result is of immediate practical interest: we can audit unfair outcomes of existing decision-making systems in a principled manner.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-18T21:09:06Z) - Risk-reducing design and operations toolkit: 90 strategies for managing
risk and uncertainty in decision problems [65.268245109828]
This paper develops a catalog of such strategies and develops a framework for them.
It argues that they provide an efficient response to decision problems that are seemingly intractable due to high uncertainty.
It then proposes a framework to incorporate them into decision theory using multi-objective optimization.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-06T16:14:32Z) - Multi-Target Multiplicity: Flexibility and Fairness in Target
Specification under Resource Constraints [76.84999501420938]
We introduce a conceptual and computational framework for assessing how the choice of target affects individuals' outcomes.
We show that the level of multiplicity that stems from target variable choice can be greater than that stemming from nearly-optimal models of a single target.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-23T18:57:14Z) - 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) - Catastrophe, Compounding & Consistency in Choice [4.974890682815778]
Conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) precisely characterizes the influence that rare, catastrophic events can exert over decisions.
These examples can ground future experiments with the broader aim of characterizing risk attitudes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-11-12T16:33:06Z) - Two steps to risk sensitivity [4.974890682815778]
conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) is a risk measure for modeling human and animal planning.
We adopt a conventional distributional approach to CVaR in a sequential setting and reanalyze the choices of human decision-makers.
We then consider a further critical property of risk sensitivity, namely time consistency, showing alternatives to this form of CVaR.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-11-12T16:27:47Z) - Robust Allocations with Diversity Constraints [65.3799850959513]
We show that the Nash Welfare rule that maximizes product of agent values is uniquely positioned to be robust when diversity constraints are introduced.
We also show that the guarantees achieved by Nash Welfare are nearly optimal within a widely studied class of allocation rules.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-30T11:09:31Z) - On Blame Attribution for Accountable Multi-Agent Sequential Decision
Making [29.431349181232203]
We study blame attribution in the context of cooperative multi-agent sequential decision making.
We show that some of the well known blame attribution methods, such as Shapley value, are not performance-incentivizing.
We introduce a novel blame attribution method, unique in the set of properties it satisfies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-07-26T02:22:23Z) - Alternative Microfoundations for Strategic Classification [33.67797984699066]
We show that rational agents with perfect information produce discontinuities in the aggregate response to a decision rule.
optimal decision rules under standard microfoundations maximize a measure of negative externality known as social burden.
Our model retains analytical tractability, leads to more robust insights about stable points, and imposes a lower social burden at optimality.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-24T00:30:58Z)
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.