AI-Facilitated Collective Judgements

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05830v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:06:22 GMT
• Title: AI-Facilitated Collective Judgements
• Authors: Manon Revel, Théophile Pénigaud,
• Abstract summary: This article unpacks the design choices behind longstanding and newly proposed computational frameworks aimed at finding common grounds across collective preferences.<n>We explore AI-facilitated collective judgment as a discovery tool for fostering reasonable representations of a collective will, sense-making, and agreement-seeking.<n>At the same time, we caution against dangerously misguided uses, such as enabling binding decisions, fostering gradual disempowerment or post-rationalizing political outcomes.
• Score: 1.3812010983144802
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This article unpacks the design choices behind longstanding and newly proposed computational frameworks aimed at finding common grounds across collective preferences and examines their potential future impacts, both technically and normatively. It begins by situating AI-assisted preference elicitation within the historical role of opinion polls, emphasizing that preferences are shaped by the decision-making context and are seldom objectively captured. With that caveat in mind, we explore AI-facilitated collective judgment as a discovery tool for fostering reasonable representations of a collective will, sense-making, and agreement-seeking. At the same time, we caution against dangerously misguided uses, such as enabling binding decisions, fostering gradual disempowerment or post-rationalizing political outcomes.

Related papers

• Consensus in Motion: A Case of Dynamic Rationality of Sequential Learning in Probability Aggregation [0.562479170374811]
  We propose a framework for probability aggregation based on propositional probability logic. We show that any consensus-compatible and independent aggregation rule on a non-nested agenda is necessarily linear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T14:04:39Z)
• Policy Aggregation [21.21314301021803]
  We consider the challenge of AI value alignment with multiple individuals with different reward functions and optimal policies in an underlying Markov decision process. We formalize this problem as one of policy aggregation, where the goal is to identify a desirable collective policy. Key insight is that social choice methods can be reinterpreted by identifying ordinal preferences with volumes of subsets of the state-action occupancy polytope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T04:19:50Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• 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.<n>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.<n>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)
• Enhancing Language Model Rationality with Bi-Directional Deliberation Reasoning [73.77288647011295]
  This paper introduces BI-Directional DEliberation Reasoning (BIDDER) to enhance the decision rationality of language models. Our approach involves three key processes:. Inferring hidden states to represent uncertain information in the decision-making process from historical data;. Using hidden states to predict future potential states and potential outcomes;. Integrating historical information (past contexts) and long-term outcomes (future contexts) to inform reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T16:48:48Z)
• ABI Approach: Automatic Bias Identification in Decision-Making Under Risk based in an Ontology of Behavioral Economics [46.57327530703435]
  Risk seeking preferences for losses, driven by biases such as loss aversion, pose challenges and can result in severe negative consequences. This research introduces the ABI approach, a novel solution designed to support organizational decision-makers by automatically identifying and explaining risk seeking preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T23:53:46Z)
• Value Preferences Estimation and Disambiguation in Hybrid Participatory Systems [3.7846812749505134]
  We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices.<n>We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants' choices and motivations.<n>We propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T17:16:28Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• 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)
• 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.