IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2206.05160.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Classes of Aggregation Rules for Ethical Decision Making in Automated Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Federico Fioravanti
  • Iyad Rahwan
  • Fernando Abel Tohm'e

Abstract

We study a class of {\em aggregation rules} that could be applied to ethical AI decision-making. These rules yield the decisions to be made by automated systems based on the information of profiles of preferences over possible choices. We consider two different but very intuitive notions of preferences of an alternative over another one, namely {\it pairwise majority} and {\it position} dominance. Preferences are represented by permutation processes over alternatives and aggregation rules are applied to obtain results that are socially considered to be ethically correct. In this setting, we find many aggregation rules that satisfy desirable properties for an autonomous system. We also address the problem of the stability of the aggregation process, which is important when the information is variable. These results are a contribution for an AI designer that wants to justify the decisions made by an autonomous system.\\ \textit{Keywords:} Aggregation Operators; Permutation Process; Decision Analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Federico Fioravanti & Iyad Rahwan & Fernando Abel Tohm'e, 2022. "Classes of Aggregation Rules for Ethical Decision Making in Automated Systems," Papers 2206.05160, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2206.05160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.05160
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan Felsenthal & Nicolaus Tideman, 2014. "Weak Condorcet winner(s) revisited," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 313-326, September.
    2. Richard Berk & Hoda Heidari & Shahin Jabbari & Michael Kearns & Aaron Roth, 2021. "Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 3-44, February.
    3. Azari Soufiani, Hossein & Diao, Hansheng & Lai, Zhenyu & Parkes, David C., 2013. "Generalized Random Utility Models with Multiple Types," Scholarly Articles 12363923, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    4. R. L. Plackett, 1975. "The Analysis of Permutations," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 24(2), pages 193-202, June.
    5. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    6. Samuele Lo Piano, 2020. "Ethical principles in machine learning and artificial intelligence: cases from the field and possible ways forward," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, December.
    7. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    8. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Federico Fioravanti & Iyad Rahwan & Fernando Tohmé, 2022. "Properties of Aggregation Operators Relevant for Ethical Decision Making in Artificial Intelligence," Working Papers 177, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    2. John W. Patty & Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2019. "A defense of Arrow’s independence of irrelevant alternatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 145-164, April.
    3. Marie-Louise Lackner & Martin Lackner, 2017. "On the likelihood of single-peaked preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 717-745, April.
    4. Krikamol Muandet, 2022. "Impossibility of Collective Intelligence," Papers 2206.02786, arXiv.org.
    5. Arlegi, Ricardo & Teschl, Miriam, 2022. "Pareto rationalizability by two single-peaked preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Bock, Hans-Hermann & Day, William H. E. & McMorris, F. R., 1998. "Consensus rules for committee elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 219-232, May.
    7. Marco LiCalzi, 2022. "Bipartite choices," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(2), pages 551-568, December.
    8. John C. McCabe-Dansted & Arkadii Slinko, 2006. "Exploratory Analysis of Similarities Between Social Choice Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 77-107, January.
    9. James Schummer, 1999. "Almost-dominant Strategy Implementation," Discussion Papers 1278, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    10. Aleskerov, Fuad & Karabekyan, Daniel & Sanver, M. Remzi & Yakuba, Vyacheslav, 2012. "On the manipulability of voting rules: The case of 4 and 5 alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73.
    11. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    12. Dindar, Hayrullah & Lainé, Jean, 2017. "Manipulation of single-winner large elections by vote pairing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 105-107.
    13. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    14. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    15. Souvik Roy & Soumyarup Sadhukhan, 2019. "A characterization of random min–max domains and its applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 887-906, November.
    16. Mizukami, Hideki & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Wakayama, Takuma, 2003. "Strategy-Proof Sharing," Working Papers 1170, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    17. Bruno Frey, 2011. "Tullock challenges: happiness, revolutions, and democracy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 269-281, September.
    18. Donaldson, Jason & Piacentino, Giorgia & Malenko, Nadya, 2017. "Deadlock on the Board," CEPR Discussion Papers 12503, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Takamiya, Koji, 2001. "Coalition strategy-proofness and monotonicity in Shapley-Scarf housing markets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 201-213, March.
    20. Freixas, Josep & Parker, Cameron, 2015. "Manipulation in games with multiple levels of output," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 144-151.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    } aggregation operators; permutation process; decision analysis.;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2206.05160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.