Meta-Learning Approaches for a One-Shot Collective-Decision Aggregation: Correctly Choosing how to Choose Correctly

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01721v1
• Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:06:59 GMT
• Title: Meta-Learning Approaches for a One-Shot Collective-Decision Aggregation: Correctly Choosing how to Choose Correctly
• Authors: Hilla Shinitzky, Yuval Shahar, Ortal Parpara, Michal Ezrets and Raz Klein
• Abstract summary: We present two one-shot machine-learning-based aggregation approaches. The first predicts, given multiple features about the collective's choices, which aggregation method will be best for a given case. The second directly predicts which decision is optimal, given, among other things, the selection made by each method.
• Score: 0.7874708385247353
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Aggregating successfully the choices regarding a given decision problem made by the multiple collective members into a single solution is essential for exploiting the collective's intelligence and for effective crowdsourcing. There are various aggregation techniques, some of which come down to a simple and sometimes effective deterministic aggregation rule. However, it has been shown that the efficiency of those techniques is unstable under varying conditions and within different domains. Other methods mainly rely on learning from the decision-makers previous responses or the availability of additional information about them. In this study, we present two one-shot machine-learning-based aggregation approaches. The first predicts, given multiple features about the collective's choices, including meta-cognitive ones, which aggregation method will be best for a given case. The second directly predicts which decision is optimal, given, among other things, the selection made by each method. We offer a meta-cognitive feature-engineering approach for characterizing a collective decision-making case in a context-sensitive fashion. In addition, we offer a new aggregation method, the Devil's-Advocate aggregator, to deal with cases in which standard aggregation methods are predicted to fail. Experimental results show that using either of our proposed approaches increases the percentage of successfully aggregated cases (i.e., cases in which the correct answer is returned) significantly, compared to the uniform application of each rule-based aggregation method. We also demonstrate the importance of the Devil's Advocate aggregator.

Related papers

• An incremental preference elicitation-based approach to learning potentially non-monotonic preferences in multi-criteria sorting [53.36437745983783]
  We first construct a max-margin optimization-based model to model potentially non-monotonic preferences. We devise information amount measurement methods and question selection strategies to pinpoint the most informative alternative in each iteration. Two incremental preference elicitation-based algorithms are developed to learn potentially non-monotonic preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T14:36:20Z)
• A multi-criteria approach for selecting an explanation from the set of counterfactuals produced by an ensemble of explainers [4.239829789304117]
  We propose to use a multi-stage ensemble approach that will select single counterfactual based on the multiple-criteria analysis. The proposed approach generates fully actionable counterfactuals with attractive compromise values of the considered quality measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T19:25:11Z)
• A data-science pipeline to enable the Interpretability of Many-Objective Feature Selection [0.1474723404975345]
  Many-Objective Feature Selection (MOFS) approaches use four or more objectives to determine the relevance of a subset of features in a supervised learning task. This paper proposes an original methodology to support data scientists in the interpretation and comparison of the MOFS outcome by combining post-processing and visualisation of the set of solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T17:44:22Z)
• Domain Generalization via Rationale Invariance [70.32415695574555]
  This paper offers a new perspective to ease the challenge of domain generalization, which involves maintaining robust results even in unseen environments. We propose treating the element-wise contributions to the final results as the rationale for making a decision and representing the rationale for each sample as a matrix. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves competitive results across various datasets, despite its simplicity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T03:31:40Z)
• An Additive Instance-Wise Approach to Multi-class Model Interpretation [53.87578024052922]
  Interpretable machine learning offers insights into what factors drive a certain prediction of a black-box system. Existing methods mainly focus on selecting explanatory input features, which follow either locally additive or instance-wise approaches. This work exploits the strengths of both methods and proposes a global framework for learning local explanations simultaneously for multiple target classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-07T06:50:27Z)
• Exploiting Meta-Cognitive Features for a Machine-Learning-Based One-Shot Group-Decision Aggregation [0.7340017786387767]
  Methods that rely on meta-cognitive information, such as confidence-based methods, had shown an improvement in various tasks. Our aim is to exploit meta-cognitive information and to learn from it, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the group to produce a correct answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-20T15:56:18Z)
• Towards Improved and Interpretable Deep Metric Learning via Attentive Grouping [103.71992720794421]
  Grouping has been commonly used in deep metric learning for computing diverse features. We propose an improved and interpretable grouping method to be integrated flexibly with any metric learning framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-17T19:08:24Z)
• Lookahead and Hybrid Sample Allocation Procedures for Multiple Attribute Selection Decisions [0.9137554315375922]
  This paper considers settings in which each measurement yields one sample of one attribute for one alternative. When given a fixed number of samples to collect, the decision-maker must determine which samples to obtain, make the measurements, update prior beliefs about the attribute magnitudes, and then select an alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-31T15:04:49Z)
• Bayesian preference elicitation for multiobjective combinatorial optimization [12.96855751244076]
  We introduce a new incremental preference elicitation procedure able to deal with noisy responses of a Decision Maker (DM) We assume that the preferences of the DM are represented by an aggregation function whose parameters are unknown and that the uncertainty about them is represented by a density function on the parameter space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-29T12:28:37Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)
• Fast Template Matching and Update for Video Object Tracking and Segmentation [56.465510428878]
  The main task we aim to tackle is the multi-instance semi-supervised video object segmentation across a sequence of frames. The challenges lie in the selection of the matching method to predict the result as well as to decide whether to update the target template. We propose a novel approach which utilizes reinforcement learning to make these two decisions at the same time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-16T08:58:45Z)

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.