Uncertainty, bias and the institution bootstrapping problem

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21579v1
• Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 12:36:06 GMT
• Title: Uncertainty, bias and the institution bootstrapping problem
• Authors: Stavros Anagnou, Christoph Salge, Peter R. Lewis,
• Abstract summary: We propose that misperception, specifically, agents' erroneous belief that an institution already exists, could resolve this paradox.<n>We show how these factors collectively mitigate the bootstrapping problem.<n>Our analysis underscores the importance of incorporating human-like cognitive constraints, not just idealized rationality, into models of institutional emergence and resilience.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Institutions play a critical role in enabling communities to manage common-pool resources and avert tragedies of the commons. However, a fundamental issue arises: Individuals typically perceive participation as advantageous only after an institution is established, creating a paradox: How can institutions form if no one will join before a critical mass exists? We term this conundrum the institution bootstrapping problem and propose that misperception, specifically, agents' erroneous belief that an institution already exists, could resolve this paradox. By integrating well-documented psychological phenomena, including cognitive biases, probability distortion, and perceptual noise, into a game-theoretic framework, we demonstrate how these factors collectively mitigate the bootstrapping problem. Notably, unbiased perceptual noise (e.g., noise arising from agents' heterogeneous physical or social contexts) drastically reduces the critical mass of cooperators required for institutional emergence. This effect intensifies with greater diversity of perceptions. We explain this counter-intuitive result through asymmetric boundary conditions: proportional underestimation of low-probability sanctions produces distinct outcomes compared to equivalent overestimation. Furthermore, the type of perceptual distortion, proportional versus absolute, yields qualitatively different evolutionary pathways. These findings challenge conventional assumptions about rationality in institutional design, highlighting how "noisy" cognition can paradoxically enhance cooperation. Finally, we contextualize these insights within broader discussions of multi-agent system design and collective action. Our analysis underscores the importance of incorporating human-like cognitive constraints, not just idealized rationality, into models of institutional emergence and resilience.

Related papers

• Opacity as Authority: Arbitrariness and the Preclusion of Contestation [0.0]
  Article redefines arbitrariness not as a normative flaw or a symptom of domination, but as a functional mechanism structuring human systems and interactions.<n>Building on Ferdinand de Saussure's concept of l'arbitraire du signe, the analysis extends this principle beyond language to demonstrate its cross-domain applicability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T19:10:35Z)
• A Comment On "The Illusion of Thinking": Reframing the Reasoning Cliff as an Agentic Gap [0.39073867995073247]
  We argue that the observed failure is not evidence of a fundamental cognitive boundary, but rather a predictable outcome of system-level constraints.<n>A model, initially declaring a puzzle impossible when confined to text-only generation, now employs agentic tools to not only solve it but also master variations of complexity far beyond the reasoning cliff it previously failed to surmount.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T17:14:21Z)
• Generalization or Hallucination? Understanding Out-of-Context Reasoning in Transformers [76.42159902257677]
  We argue that both behaviors stem from a single mechanism known as out-of-context reasoning (OCR)<n>OCR drives both generalization and hallucination, depending on whether the associated concepts are causally related.<n>Our work provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the OCR phenomenon, offering a new lens for analyzing and mitigating undesirable behaviors from knowledge injection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T16:50:45Z)
• Reciprocity as the Foundational Substrate of Society: How Reciprocal Dynamics Scale into Social Systems [0.0]
  We argue that reciprocity is not merely a local or primitive exchange, but a scalable substrate from which large-scale social structures can emerge.<n>We propose a three-stage framework to model this emergence: reciprocal dynamics at the individual level, norm stabilization through shared expectations, and the construction of durable institutional patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T07:50:01Z)
• Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models: A Survey [9.50669909278749]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are leading a new technological revolution as one of the most promising research streams toward artificial general intelligence.<n>The scaling of these models has been linked to various so-called emergent abilities that were previously unobserved.<n>These abilities range from advanced reasoning and in-context learning to coding and problem-solving.<n>Despite their transformative potential, emergent abilities remain poorly understood, leading to misconceptions about their definition, nature, predictability, and implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T01:20:01Z)
• Position: Cracking the Code of Cascading Disparity Towards Marginalized Communities [14.497314894554828]
  We discuss that disparities towards marginalized communities are not isolated concerns but rather interconnected elements of a cascading disparity phenomenon. We emphasize the unique threat of cascading impacts in foundation models, where interconnected disparities can trigger long-lasting negative consequences. We conclude with a set of calls to action to mitigate disparity at its source.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T19:52:41Z)
• Decoding Susceptibility: Modeling Misbelief to Misinformation Through a Computational Approach [61.04606493712002]
  Susceptibility to misinformation describes the degree of belief in unverifiable claims that is not observable. Existing susceptibility studies heavily rely on self-reported beliefs. We propose a computational approach to model users' latent susceptibility levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T07:22:56Z)
• Answering Causal Queries at Layer 3 with DiscoSCMs-Embracing Heterogeneity [0.0]
  This paper advocates for the Distribution-consistency Structural Causal Models (DiscoSCM) framework as a pioneering approach to counterfactual inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-17T17:01:05Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Explanation: On Causal Rationalization [9.48539398357156]
  We propose a new model of rationalization based on two causal desiderata, non-spuriousness and efficiency. The superior performance of the proposed causal rationalization is demonstrated on real-world review and medical datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-25T03:34:06Z)
• Causal Triplet: An Open Challenge for Intervention-centric Causal Representation Learning [98.78136504619539]
  Causal Triplet is a causal representation learning benchmark featuring visually more complex scenes. We show that models built with the knowledge of disentangled or object-centric representations significantly outperform their distributed counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-12T17:43:38Z)
• Social Diversity Reduces the Complexity and Cost of Fostering Fairness [63.70639083665108]
  We investigate the effects of interference mechanisms which assume incomplete information and flexible standards of fairness. We quantify the role of diversity and show how it reduces the need for information gathering. Our results indicate that diversity changes and opens up novel mechanisms available to institutions wishing to promote fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T21:58:35Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Deconfounding Scores: Feature Representations for Causal Effect Estimation with Weak Overlap [140.98628848491146]
  We introduce deconfounding scores, which induce better overlap without biasing the target of estimation. We show that deconfounding scores satisfy a zero-covariance condition that is identifiable in observed data. In particular, we show that this technique could be an attractive alternative to standard regularizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T18:50:11Z)
• Cooperation and Reputation Dynamics with Reinforcement Learning [6.219565750197311]
  We show how reputations can be used as a way to establish trust and cooperation. We propose two mechanisms to alleviate convergence to undesirable equilibria. We show how our results relate to the literature in Evolutionary Game Theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-15T12:48:56Z)

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.