Beyond Predictions: A Participatory Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08542v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:27:40 GMT
• Title: Beyond Predictions: A Participatory Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision-Making
• Authors: Vittoria Vineis, Giuseppe Perelli, Gabriele Tolomei,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel participatory framework that redefines decision-making as a multi-stakeholder optimization problem. Our framework captures each actor's preferences through context-dependent reward functions. We introduce a synthetic scoring mechanism that exploits user-defined preferences across multiple metrics to rank decision-making strategies.
• Score: 3.3044728148521623
• License:
• Abstract: Conventional decision-support systems, primarily based on supervised learning, focus on outcome prediction models to recommend actions. However, they often fail to account for the complexities of multi-actor environments, where diverse and potentially conflicting stakeholder preferences must be balanced. In this paper, we propose a novel participatory framework that redefines decision-making as a multi-stakeholder optimization problem, capturing each actor's preferences through context-dependent reward functions. Our framework leverages $k$-fold cross-validation to fine-tune user-provided outcome prediction models and evaluate decision strategies, including compromise functions mediating stakeholder trade-offs. We introduce a synthetic scoring mechanism that exploits user-defined preferences across multiple metrics to rank decision-making strategies and identify the optimal decision-maker. The selected decision-maker can then be used to generate actionable recommendations for new data. We validate our framework using two real-world use cases, demonstrating its ability to deliver recommendations that effectively balance multiple metrics, achieving results that are often beyond the scope of purely prediction-based methods. Ablation studies demonstrate that our framework, with its modular, model-agnostic, and inherently transparent design, integrates seamlessly with various predictive models, reward structures, evaluation metrics, and sample sizes, making it particularly suited for complex, high-stakes decision-making contexts.

Related papers

• Reason4Rec: Large Language Models for Recommendation with Deliberative User Preference Alignment [69.11529841118671]
  We propose a new Deliberative Recommendation task, which incorporates explicit reasoning about user preferences as an additional alignment goal. We then introduce the Reasoning-powered Recommender framework for deliberative user preference alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T07:17:54Z)
• An incremental preference elicitation-based approach to learning potentially non-monotonic preferences in multi-criteria sorting [53.36437745983783]
  We first construct a max-margin optimization-based model to model potentially non-monotonic preferences. We devise information amount measurement methods and question selection strategies to pinpoint the most informative alternative in each iteration. Two incremental preference elicitation-based algorithms are developed to learn potentially non-monotonic preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T14:36:20Z)
• Decision-Focused Forecasting: Decision Losses for Multistage Optimisation [0.0]
  We propose decision-focused forecasting, a multiple-implicitlayer model which in its training accounts for the intertemporal decision effects of forecasts using differentiable optimisation. We present an analysis of the gradients produced by this model showing the adjustments made to account for the state-path caused by forecasting. We demonstrate an application of the model to an energy storage arbitrage task and report that our model outperforms existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T15:48:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Bayesian Persuasion for Algorithmic Recourse [28.586165301962485]
  In some situations, the underlying predictive model is deliberately kept secret to avoid gaming. This opacity forces the decision subjects to rely on incomplete information when making strategic feature modifications. We capture such settings as a game of Bayesian persuasion, in which the decision-maker sends a signal, e.g., an action recommendation, to a decision subject to incentivize them to take desirable actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-12T17:18:54Z)
• Mixed-Integer Optimization with Constraint Learning [4.462264781248437]
  We establish a broad methodological foundation for mixed-integer optimization with learned constraints. We exploit the mixed-integer optimization-representability of many machine learning methods. We demonstrate the method in both World Food Programme planning and chemotherapy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-04T20:19:55Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)

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.