Let's Agree to Agree: Targeting Consensus for Incomplete Preferences through Majority Dynamics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00881v1
• Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 10:47:21 GMT
• Title: Let's Agree to Agree: Targeting Consensus for Incomplete Preferences through Majority Dynamics
• Authors: Sirin Botan, Simon Rey, Zoi Terzopoulou
• Abstract summary: We focus on a process of majority dynamics where issues are addressed one at a time and undecided agents follow the opinion of the majority. We show that in the worst case, myopic adherence to the majority damages existing consensus; yet, simulation experiments indicate that the damage is often mild.
• Score: 13.439086686599891
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We study settings in which agents with incomplete preferences need to make a collective decision. We focus on a process of majority dynamics where issues are addressed one at a time and undecided agents follow the opinion of the majority. We assess the effects of this process on various consensus notions -- such as the Condorcet winner -- and show that in the worst case, myopic adherence to the majority damages existing consensus; yet, simulation experiments indicate that the damage is often mild. We also examine scenarios where the chair of the decision process can control the existence (or the identity) of consensus, by determining the order in which the issues are discussed.

Related papers

• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Identifying and Addressing Delusions for Target-Directed Decision-Making [81.22463009144987]
  We show that target-directed agents are prone to blindly chasing problematic targets, resulting in worse generalization and safety catastrophes. We identify different types of delusions via intuitive examples in controlled environments, and investigate their causes and mitigations. We validate empirically the effectiveness of the proposed strategies in correcting delusional behaviors and improving out-of-distribution generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:35:25Z)
• (De)Noise: Moderating the Inconsistency Between Human Decision-Makers [15.291993233528526]
  We study whether algorithmic decision aids can be used to moderate the degree of inconsistency in human decision-making in the context of real estate appraisal. We find that both (i) asking respondents to review their estimates in a series of algorithmically chosen pairwise comparisons and (ii) providing respondents with traditional machine advice are effective strategies for influencing human responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T20:24:36Z)
• Reward Design for Justifiable Sequential Decision-Making [12.284934135116515]
  We propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T14:29:30Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Pure Exploration under Mediators' Feedback [63.56002444692792]
  Multi-armed bandits are a sequential-decision-making framework, where, at each interaction step, the learner selects an arm and observes a reward. We consider the scenario in which the learner has access to a set of mediators, each of which selects the arms on the agent's behalf according to a and possibly unknown policy. We propose a sequential decision-making strategy for discovering the best arm under the assumption that the mediators' policies are known to the learner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T18:18:21Z)
• Measuring and Controlling Divisiveness in Rank Aggregation [2.75005999729995]
  In rank aggregation, members of a population rank issues to decide which are collectively preferred. We focus instead on identifying divisive issues that express disagreements among the preferences of individuals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T13:55:25Z)
• Formalizing the Problem of Side Effect Regularization [81.97441214404247]
  We propose a formal criterion for side effect regularization via the assistance game framework. In these games, the agent solves a partially observable Markov decision process. We show that this POMDP is solved by trading off the proxy reward with the agent's ability to achieve a range of future tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-23T16:36:13Z)
• Peer Selection with Noisy Assessments [43.307040330622186]
  We extend PeerNomination, the most accurate peer reviewing algorithm to date, into WeightedPeerNomination. We show analytically that a weighting scheme can improve the overall accuracy of the selection significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-21T14:47:11Z)
• A Large Scale Randomized Controlled Trial on Herding in Peer-Review Discussions [33.261698377782075]
  We aim to understand whether reviewers and more senior decision makers get disproportionately influenced by the first argument presented in a discussion. Specifically, we design and execute a randomized controlled trial with the goal of testing for the conditional causal effect of the discussion initiator's opinion on the outcome of a paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-30T18:23:07Z)
• 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.