Measuring and Controlling Divisiveness in Rank Aggregation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08511v1
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 13:55:25 GMT
- Title: Measuring and Controlling Divisiveness in Rank Aggregation
- Authors: Rachael Colley, Umberto Grandi, C\'esar Hidalgo, Mariana Macedo and
Carlos Navarrete
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 2.75005999729995
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: 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. We analyse the
properties of our divisiveness measures and their relation to existing notions
of polarisation. We also study their robustness under incomplete preferences
and algorithms for control and manipulation of divisiveness. Our results
advance our understanding of how to quantify disagreements in collective
decision-making.
Related papers
- Value Preferences Estimation and Disambiguation in Hybrid Participatory
Systems [4.134492403234449]
Understanding citizens' values in participatory systems is crucial for citizen-centric policy-making.
We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices, and AI agents estimate their value preferences by interacting with them.
We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants' choices and motivations, and propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-26T17:16:28Z) - The effect of diversity on group decision-making [11.079483551335597]
We show that small groups can, through dialogue, overcome intuitive biases and improve individual decision-making.
Across a large sample and different operationalisations, we consistently find that greater cognitive diversity is associated with more successful group deliberation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-02T14:15:01Z) - Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome
Homogenization? [90.35044668396591]
A recurring theme in machine learning is algorithmic monoculture: the same systems, or systems that share components, are deployed by multiple decision-makers.
We propose the component-sharing hypothesis: if decision-makers share components like training data or specific models, then they will produce more homogeneous outcomes.
We test this hypothesis on algorithmic fairness benchmarks, demonstrating that sharing training data reliably exacerbates homogenization.
We conclude with philosophical analyses of and societal challenges for outcome homogenization, with an eye towards implications for deployed machine learning systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-25T09:33:11Z) - On the Complexity of Adversarial Decision Making [101.14158787665252]
We show that the Decision-Estimation Coefficient is necessary and sufficient to obtain low regret for adversarial decision making.
We provide new structural results that connect the Decision-Estimation Coefficient to variants of other well-known complexity measures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-27T06:20:37Z) - Let's Agree to Agree: Targeting Consensus for Incomplete Preferences
through Majority Dynamics [13.439086686599891]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-28T10:47:21Z) - Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A
Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes.
We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z) - Concurrent Discrimination and Alignment for Self-Supervised Feature
Learning [52.213140525321165]
Existing self-supervised learning methods learn by means of pretext tasks which are either (1) discriminating that explicitly specify which features should be separated or (2) aligning that precisely indicate which features should be closed together.
In this work, we combine the positive aspects of the discriminating and aligning methods, and design a hybrid method that addresses the above issue.
Our method explicitly specifies the repulsion and attraction mechanism respectively by discriminative predictive task and concurrently maximizing mutual information between paired views.
Our experiments on nine established benchmarks show that the proposed model consistently outperforms the existing state-of-the-art results of self-supervised and transfer
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-08-19T09:07:41Z) - Egalitarian Judgment Aggregation [10.42629447317569]
Egalitarian considerations play a central role in many areas of social choice theory.
We introduce axioms capturing two classical interpretations of egalitarianism in judgment aggregation.
We then explore the relationship between these axioms and several notions of strategyproofness from social choice theory.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-02-04T18:07:31Z) - A model to support collective reasoning: Formalization, analysis and
computational assessment [1.126958266688732]
We propose a new model to represent human debates and methods to obtain collective conclusions from them.
This model overcomes drawbacks of existing approaches by allowing users to introduce new pieces of information into the discussion.
We show that aggregated opinions can be coherent even if there is a lack of consensus.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-07-14T06:55:32Z) - 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) - Towards Quantifying the Distance between Opinions [66.29568619199074]
We find that measures based solely on text similarity or on overall sentiment often fail to effectively capture the distance between opinions.
We propose a new distance measure for capturing the similarity between opinions that leverages the nuanced observation.
In an unsupervised setting, our distance measure achieves significantly better Adjusted Rand Index scores (up to 56x) and Silhouette coefficients (up to 21x) compared to existing approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-27T16:01:10Z)
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.