What is Legitimate Decision Support?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.12071v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:20:18 GMT
• Title: What is Legitimate Decision Support?
• Authors: Yves Meinard, Alexis Tsouki\`as
• Abstract summary: Two concepts have structured the literature devoted to analysing this aspect of decision support: validity and legitimacy. Despite its importance, this concept has not received the attention it deserves in the literature in decision support. We propose a general theory of legitimacy, adapted to decision support contexts.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Decision support is the science and associated practice that consist in providing recommendations to decision makers facing problems, based on available theoretical knowledge and empirical data. Although this activity is often seen as being concerned with solving mathematical problems and conceiving algorithms, it is essentially an empirical and socially framed activity, where interactions between clients and analysts, and between them and concerned third parties, play a crucial role. Since the 80s, two concepts have structured the literature devoted to analysing this aspect of decision support: validity and legitimacy. Whereas validity is focused on the interactions between the client and the analyst, legitimacy refers to the broader picture: the organisational context, the overall problem situation, the environment, culture, history. Despite its importance, this concept has not received the attention it deserves in the literature in decision support. The present paper aims at filling this gap. For that purpose, we review the literature in other disciplines relevant to elaborate a concept of legitimacy useful in decision support contexts. Based on this review, we propose a general theory of legitimacy, adapted to decision support contexts, encompassing the relevant contributions we found in the literature. According to this general theory, a legitimate decision support intervention is one for which the decision support provider produces a justification that satisfies two conditions: (i) it effectively convinces the decision support provider's interlocutors (effectiveness condition) and (ii) it is organised around the active elicitation of as many and as diverse counterarguments as possible (truthfulness condition). Despite its conceptual simplicity, legitimacy, understood in this sense, is a very exacting requirement, opening ambitious research avenues that we delineate.

Related papers

• The Odyssey of Commonsense Causality: From Foundational Benchmarks to Cutting-Edge Reasoning [70.16523526957162]
  Understanding commonsense causality helps people understand the principles of the real world better. Despite its significance, a systematic exploration of this topic is notably lacking. Our work aims to provide a systematic overview, update scholars on recent advancements, and provide a pragmatic guide for beginners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T16:30:50Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• The Sentiment Problem: A Critical Survey towards Deconstructing Sentiment Analysis [9.379013474854776]
  We investigate the sociotechnical aspects of sentiment analysis (SA) by critically examining 189 peer-reviewed papers on their applications, models, and datasets. By delving into sociological and technological literature on sentiment, we unveil distinct conceptualizations of this term in domains such as finance, government, and medicine. Our study exposes a lack of explicit definitions and frameworks for characterizing sentiment, resulting in potential challenges and biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:42:44Z)
• Reconciling Predictive and Statistical Parity: A Causal Approach [68.59381759875734]
  We propose a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity. We show that the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:23:22Z)
• ACROCPoLis: A Descriptive Framework for Making Sense of Fairness [6.4686347616068005]
  We propose the ACROCPoLis framework to represent allocation processes with a modeling emphasis on fairness aspects. The framework provides a shared vocabulary in which the factors relevant to fairness assessments for different situations and procedures are made explicit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T21:14:57Z)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• 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)
• Conceptualising Contestability: Perspectives on Contesting Algorithmic Decisions [18.155121103400333]
  We describe and analyse the perspectives of people and organisations who made submissions in response to Australia's proposed AI Ethics Framework' Our findings reveal that while the nature of contestability is disputed, it is seen as a way to protect individuals, and it resembles contestability in relation to human decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-23T05:13:18Z)
• A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects [24.615500469071183]
  We focus on algorithmic recourse, which is concerned with providing explanations and recommendations to individuals who are unfavourably treated by automated decision-making systems. We perform an extensive literature review, and align the efforts of many authors by presenting unified definitions, formulations, and solutions to recourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T15:15:34Z)
• Inverse Active Sensing: Modeling and Understanding Timely Decision-Making [111.07204912245841]
  We develop a framework for the general setting of evidence-based decision-making under endogenous, context-dependent time pressure. We demonstrate how it enables modeling intuitive notions of surprise, suspense, and optimality in decision strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-25T02:30:45Z)

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.