Approaches to the Algorithmic Allocation of Public Resources: A Cross-disciplinary Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06475v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:46:01 GMT
• Title: Approaches to the Algorithmic Allocation of Public Resources: A Cross-disciplinary Review
• Authors: Saba Esnaashari, Jonathan Bright, John Francis, Youmna Hashem, Vincent Straub, Deborah Morgan
• Abstract summary: We performed a cross disciplinary literature review to understand approaches taken for different areas of algorithmic allocation. We analyzed the 75 papers from the lenses of optimization goals, techniques, interpretability, flexibility, bias, ethical considerations, and performance. We found considerable potential for performance gains, with optimization techniques often decreasing waiting times and increasing success rate by as much as 50%.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Allocation of scarce resources is a recurring challenge for the public sector: something that emerges in areas as diverse as healthcare, disaster recovery, and social welfare. The complexity of these policy domains and the need for meeting multiple and sometimes conflicting criteria has led to increased focus on the use of algorithms in this type of decision. However, little engagement between researchers across these domains has happened, meaning a lack of understanding of common problems and techniques for approaching them. Here, we performed a cross disciplinary literature review to understand approaches taken for different areas of algorithmic allocation including healthcare, organ transplantation, homelessness, disaster relief, and welfare. We initially identified 1070 papers by searching the literature, then six researchers went through them in two phases of screening resulting in 176 and 75 relevant papers respectively. We then analyzed the 75 papers from the lenses of optimization goals, techniques, interpretability, flexibility, bias, ethical considerations, and performance. We categorized approaches into human-oriented versus resource-oriented perspective, and individual versus aggregate and identified that 76% of the papers approached the problem from a human perspective and 60% from an aggregate level using optimization techniques. We found considerable potential for performance gains, with optimization techniques often decreasing waiting times and increasing success rate by as much as 50%. However, there was a lack of attention to responsible innovation: only around one third of the papers considered ethical issues in choosing the optimization goals while just a very few of them paid attention to the bias issues. Our work can serve as a guide for policy makers and researchers wanting to use an algorithm for addressing a resource allocation problem.

Related papers

• 15 Years of Algorithmic Fairness -- Scoping Review of Interdisciplinary Developments in the Field [0.0]
  This paper presents a scoping review of algorithmic fairness research over the past fifteen years. All articles come from the computer science and legal field and focus on AI algorithms with potential discriminatory effects on population groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T07:50:01Z)
• Responsible AI Considerations in Text Summarization Research: A Review of Current Practices [89.85174013619883]
  We focus on text summarization, a common NLP task largely overlooked by the responsible AI community. We conduct a multi-round qualitative analysis of 333 summarization papers from the ACL Anthology published between 2020-2022. We focus on how, which, and when responsible AI issues are covered, which relevant stakeholders are considered, and mismatches between stated and realized research goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T15:35:36Z)
• Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Survey [43.463169774689646]
  This survey caters to practitioners and researchers with a balanced and integrated coverage of systems, biases, measures, mitigation strategies, datasets, and legal aspects of algorithmic hiring and fairness. Our work supports a contextualized understanding and governance of this technology by highlighting current opportunities and limitations, providing recommendations for future work to ensure shared benefits for all stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T08:04:18Z)
• Why is the winner the best? [78.74409216961632]
  We performed a multi-center study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE I SBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Winning solutions typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%), and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and postprocessing (66%) Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T21:41:42Z)
• A Gold Standard Dataset for the Reviewer Assignment Problem [117.59690218507565]
  "Similarity score" is a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers. For the task of ordering two papers in terms of their relevance for a reviewer, the error rates range from 12%-30% in easy cases to 36%-43% in hard cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T16:15:03Z)
• Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directions [119.67643184567623]
  We review the concepts and notions of fairness that were put forward in the area in the recent past. We present an overview of how research in this field is currently operationalized. Overall, our analysis of recent works points to certain research gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T08:34:25Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness Datasets: the Story so Far [68.45921483094705]
  Data-driven algorithms are studied in diverse domains to support critical decisions, directly impacting people's well-being. A growing community of researchers has been investigating the equity of existing algorithms and proposing novel ones, advancing the understanding of risks and opportunities of automated decision-making for historically disadvantaged populations. Progress in fair Machine Learning hinges on data, which can be appropriately used only if adequately documented. Unfortunately, the algorithmic fairness community suffers from a collective data documentation debt caused by a lack of information on specific resources (opacity) and scatteredness of available information (sparsity)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-03T17:25:46Z)
• Weight-Sharing Neural Architecture Search: A Battle to Shrink the Optimization Gap [90.93522795555724]
  Neural architecture search (NAS) has attracted increasing attentions in both academia and industry. Weight-sharing methods were proposed in which exponentially many architectures share weights in the same super-network. This paper provides a literature review on NAS, in particular the weight-sharing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-04T11:57:03Z)
• How to Evaluate Solutions in Pareto-based Search-Based Software Engineering? A Critical Review and Methodological Guidance [9.040916182677963]
  This paper reviews studies on quality evaluation for multi-objective optimization in Search-Based SE. We conduct an in-depth analysis of quality evaluation indicators/methods and general situations in SBSE. We codify a methodological guidance for selecting and using evaluation methods in different SBSE scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-20T22:12:13Z)

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.