Detection of decision-making manipulation in the pairwise comparisons method

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16693v1
• Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 20:58:12 GMT
• Title: Detection of decision-making manipulation in the pairwise comparisons method
• Authors: Michał Strada, Sebastian Ernst, Jacek Szybowski, Konrad Kułakowski,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents three simple manipulation methods in the pairwise comparison method. We then try to detect these methods using appropriately constructed neural networks. Experimental results accompany the proposed solutions on the generated data, showing a considerable manipulation detection level.
• Score: 0.2678472239880052
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Most decision-making models, including the pairwise comparison method, assume the decision-makers honesty. However, it is easy to imagine a situation where a decision-maker tries to manipulate the ranking results. This paper presents three simple manipulation methods in the pairwise comparison method. We then try to detect these methods using appropriately constructed neural networks. Experimental results accompany the proposed solutions on the generated data, showing a considerable manipulation detection level.

Related papers

• Establishing a leader in a pairwise comparisons method [0.2678472239880052]
  We show two algorithms that can be used to launch a manipulation attack. They allow for equating the weights of two selected alternatives in the pairwise comparison method and, consequently, choosing a leader.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T23:42:00Z)
• 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)
• Better Understanding Differences in Attribution Methods via Systematic Evaluations [57.35035463793008]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We use these evaluation schemes to study strengths and shortcomings of some widely used attribution methods over a wide range of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T14:24:58Z)
• Manipulation of individual judgments in the quantitative pairwise comparisons method [0.0]
  It is commonly believed that experts (decision-makers) are honest in their judgments. In our work, we consider a scenario in which experts are vulnerable to bribery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-01T22:35:00Z)
• Heuristic Rating Estimation Method for the incomplete pairwise comparisons matrices [0.0]
  Heuristic Rating Estimation Method enables decision-makers to decide based on existing ranking data and expert comparisons. We show how these algorithms can be extended so that the experts do not need to compare all alternatives pairwise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-21T23:14:21Z)
• Towards Better Understanding Attribution Methods [77.1487219861185]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We also propose a post-processing smoothing step that significantly improves the performance of some attribution methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T20:50:17Z)
• Meta-Learning Approaches for a One-Shot Collective-Decision Aggregation: Correctly Choosing how to Choose Correctly [0.7874708385247353]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-03T15:06:59Z)
• Adaptive Sampling for Heterogeneous Rank Aggregation from Noisy Pairwise Comparisons [85.5955376526419]
  In rank aggregation problems, users exhibit various accuracy levels when comparing pairs of items. We propose an elimination-based active sampling strategy, which estimates the ranking of items via noisy pairwise comparisons. We prove that our algorithm can return the true ranking of items with high probability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T13:51:55Z)
• 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)
• Almost-Matching-Exactly for Treatment Effect Estimation under Network Interference [73.23326654892963]
  We propose a matching method that recovers direct treatment effects from randomized experiments where units are connected in an observed network. Our method matches units almost exactly on counts of unique subgraphs within their neighborhood graphs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T15:21:20Z)
• Learning with Differentiable Perturbed Optimizers [54.351317101356614]
  We propose a systematic method to transform operations into operations that are differentiable and never locally constant. Our approach relies on perturbeds, and can be used readily together with existing solvers. We show how this framework can be connected to a family of losses developed in structured prediction, and give theoretical guarantees for their use in learning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-20T11:11:32Z)

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.