Unweighted ranking for value-based decision making with uncertainty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13601v1
• Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 14:36:17 GMT
• Title: Unweighted ranking for value-based decision making with uncertainty
• Abstract summary: We introduce the Fuzzy-Unweighted Value-Based Decision Making (FUW-VBDM) framework.<n>Agents incorporate both quantitative and qualitative criteria to generate human-centred decisions.<n>We present Rankzzy, a customizable unweighted ranking method that integrates fuzzy-based reasoning to quantify uncertainty.
• Score: 5.607590231264275
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: As intelligent systems are increasingly implemented in our society to make autonomous decisions, their commitment to human values raises serious concerns. Their alignment with human values remains a critical challenge because it can jeopardise the integrity and security of citizens. For this reason, an innovative human-centred and values-driven approach to decision making is required. In this work, we introduce the Fuzzy-Unweighted Value-Based Decision Making (FUW-VBDM) framework, where agents incorporate both quantitative and qualitative criteria to generate human-centred decisions. We also address the normative bias introduced by stakeholders with arbitrary weights by removing prior weights and introducing a fuzzy domain of decision variables defined for a score function. This concept allows us to generalise any VBDM problem as the search for feasible solutions when optimising the score in the weight domain. To provide a solution to FUW-VBDM, we present Rankzzy, a customizable unweighted ranking method that integrates fuzzy-based reasoning to quantify uncertainty. We mathematically prove the consistency of the Rankzzy for any admissible configuration selected by stakeholders. We show the applicability of our method through an illustrative case study, which we also use as a running example. The evaluation conducted indicates a reduced computational cost in large-scale value-based decision-making problems and a strong rank performance regarding existing approaches when employing the aggregation via Pythagorean means.

Related papers

• A New Approach for Multicriteria Assessment in the Ranking of Alternatives Using Cardinal and Ordinal Data [0.0]
  We propose a novel MCA approach that combines two Virtual Gap Analysis (VGA) models.<n>The VGA framework, rooted in linear programming, is pivotal in the MCA methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T04:00:48Z)
• A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Funding [61.86327960322782]
  We propose a principled framework for randomized decision-making based on interval estimates of the quality of each item.<n>We introduce MERIT, an optimization-based method that maximizes the worst-case expected number of top candidates selected.<n>We prove that MERIT satisfies desirable axiomatic properties not guaranteed by existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T19:59:30Z)
• Cascaded Language Models for Cost-effective Human-AI Decision-Making [52.81324217423194]
  We present a cascaded LLM decision framework that adaptively delegates tasks across multiple tiers of expertise.<n>First, a deferral policy determines whether to accept the base model's answer or regenerate it with a large model.<n>Second, an abstention policy decides whether the cascade model response is sufficiently certain or requires human intervention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:36:22Z)
• Conformalized Decision Risk Assessment [5.391713612899277]
  We introduce CREDO, a novel framework that quantifies for any candidate decision, a distribution-free upper bound on the probability that the decision is suboptimal.<n>By combining inverse optimization geometry with conformal prediction and generative modeling, CREDO produces risk certificates that are both statistically rigorous and practically interpretable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T15:24:38Z)
• Using Machine Bias To Measure Human Bias [10.983607899068204]
  We propose a machine learning-based framework to assess bias in human-generated decisions.<n>We provide theoretical guarantees and empirical evidence demonstrating the superiority of our method over existing alternatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T08:02:31Z)
• Towards Objective and Unbiased Decision Assessments with LLM-Enhanced Hierarchical Attention Networks [6.520709313101523]
  This work investigates cognitive bias identification in high-stake decision making process by human experts. We propose bias-aware AI-augmented workflow that surpass human judgment. In our experiments, both the proposed model and the agentic workflow significantly improves on both human judgment and alternative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T10:42:11Z)
• Balancing Optimality and Diversity: Human-Centered Decision Making through Generative Curation [6.980546503227467]
  Operational decisions in healthcare, logistics, and public policy increasingly involve algorithms that recommend candidate solutions, while leaving the final choice to human decision-makers.<n>We propose generative curation, a framework that optimally generates recommendation sets when desirability depends on both observable objectives and unobserved qualitative considerations.<n>Our framework provides decision-makers with a principled way to design algorithms that complement, rather than replace, human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T20:13:32Z)
• Model-Based Epistemic Variance of Values for Risk-Aware Policy Optimization [59.758009422067]
  We consider the problem of quantifying uncertainty over expected cumulative rewards in model-based reinforcement learning. We propose a new uncertainty Bellman equation (UBE) whose solution converges to the true posterior variance over values. We introduce a general-purpose policy optimization algorithm, Q-Uncertainty Soft Actor-Critic (QU-SAC) that can be applied for either risk-seeking or risk-averse policy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T15:55:58Z)
• 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 solving decision and risk management problems subject to uncertainty [91.3755431537592]
  Uncertainty is a pervasive challenge in decision and risk management. This paper develops a systematic understanding of such strategies, determine their range of application, and develop a framework to better employ them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T19:16:23Z)
• 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)
• A Justice-Based Framework for the Analysis of Algorithmic Fairness-Utility Trade-Offs [0.0]
  In prediction-based decision-making systems, different perspectives can be at odds. The short-term business goals of the decision makers are often in conflict with the decision subjects' wish to be treated fairly. We propose a framework to make these value-laden choices clearly visible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-06T20:31:55Z)
• Off-Policy Evaluation with Policy-Dependent Optimization Response [90.28758112893054]
  We develop a new framework for off-policy evaluation with a textitpolicy-dependent linear optimization response. We construct unbiased estimators for the policy-dependent estimand by a perturbation method. We provide a general algorithm for optimizing causal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T20:25:37Z)

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.