Value Preferences Estimation and Disambiguation in Hybrid Participatory
Systems
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16751v1
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:16:28 GMT
- Title: Value Preferences Estimation and Disambiguation in Hybrid Participatory
Systems
- Authors: Enrico Liscio, Luciano C. Siebert, Catholijn M. Jonker, Pradeep K.
Murukannaiah
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 4.134492403234449
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: 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. We
operationalize the philosophical stance that "valuing is deliberatively
consequential." That is, if a participant's choice is based on a deliberation
of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation
the participant provides for the choice. Thus, we propose and compare value
estimation methods that prioritize the values estimated from motivations over
the values estimated from choices alone. Then, we introduce a disambiguation
strategy that addresses the detected inconsistencies between choices and
motivations by directly interacting with the participants. We evaluate the
proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The
results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and
motivations improves the estimation of an individual's value preferences. The
disambiguation strategy does not show substantial improvements when compared to
similar baselines--however, we discuss how the novelty of the approach can open
new research avenues and propose improvements to address the current
limitations.
Related papers
- EARN Fairness: Explaining, Asking, Reviewing and Negotiating Artificial Intelligence Fairness Metrics Among Stakeholders [5.216732191267959]
We propose a new framework, EARN Fairness, which facilitates collective metric decisions among stakeholders without requiring AI expertise.
The framework features an adaptable interactive system and a stakeholder-centered EARN Fairness process to explain fairness metrics, Ask stakeholders' personal metric preferences, Review metrics collectively, and Negotiate a consensus on metric selection.
Our work shows that the EARN Fairness framework enables stakeholders to express personal preferences and reach consensus, providing practical guidance for implementing human-centered AI fairness in high-risk contexts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-16T07:20:30Z) - (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) - Be Aware of the Neighborhood Effect: Modeling Selection Bias under Interference [50.95521705711802]
Previous studies have focused on addressing selection bias to achieve unbiased learning of the prediction model.
This paper formally formulates the neighborhood effect as an interference problem from the perspective of causal inference.
We propose a novel ideal loss that can be used to deal with selection bias in the presence of neighborhood effect.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-30T15:20:41Z) - Subjective-objective policy making approach: Coupling of resident-values
multiple regression analysis with value-indices, multi-agent-based simulation [0.0]
This study proposes a new combined subjective-objective policy evaluation approach to choose better policy.
The proposed approach establishes a subjective target function based on a multiple regression analysis of the results of a residents questionnaire survey.
Using the new approach to compare several policies enables concrete expression of the will of stakeholders with diverse values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-14T02:33:32Z) - In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the
Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria.
We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z) - Inclusive Artificial Intelligence [27.09425461169165]
Methods for assessing and comparing generative AIs incentivize responses that serve a hypothetical representative individual.
We propose an alternative evaluation method that instead prioritizes inclusive AIs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-24T02:13:26Z) - Justification of Recommender Systems Results: A Service-based Approach [4.640835690336653]
We propose a novel justification approach that uses service models to extract experience data from reviews concerning all the stages of interaction with items.
In a user study, we compared our approach with baselines reflecting the state of the art in the justification of recommender systems results.
Our models received higher Interface Adequacy and Satisfaction evaluations by users having different levels of Curiosity or low Need for Cognition (NfC)
These findings encourage the adoption of service models to justify recommender systems results but suggest the investigation of personalization strategies to suit diverse interaction needs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-07T11:08:19Z) - 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) - Models of human preference for learning reward functions [80.39289349661364]
We learn the reward function from human-generated preferences between pairs of trajectory segments.
We find this assumption to be flawed and propose modeling human preferences as informed by each segment's regret.
Our proposed regret preference model better predicts real human preferences and also learns reward functions from these preferences that lead to policies that are better human-aligned.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-05T17:58:02Z) - Price DOES Matter! Modeling Price and Interest Preferences in
Session-based Recommendation [55.0391061198924]
Session-based recommendation aims to predict items that an anonymous user would like to purchase based on her short behavior sequence.
It is nontrivial to incorporate price preferences for session-based recommendation.
We propose a novel method Co-guided Heterogeneous Hypergraph Network (CoHHN) for session-based recommendation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-09T10:47:15Z) - 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.