IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aoz/wpaper/177.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Properties of Aggregation Operators Relevant for Ethical Decision Making in Artificial Intelligence

Author

Listed:
  • Federico Fioravanti

    (Universidad Nacional del Sur/CONICET)

  • Iyad Rahwan

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Development)

  • Fernando Tohmé

    (Universidad Nacional del Sur/CONICET)

Abstract

We present an axiomatic study of aggregation operators that could be applied to ethical AI decision making. The information is given here by different preferences over the decisions to be made by automated systems. We consider two different but very intuitive notions of preference of an alternative over another one, namely pairwise majority and 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. We address the problem of the stability of the aggregation process, which is important when the information is variable. In this setting we find many aggregation rules that satisfy desirable properties for an autonomous system.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:aoz:wpaper:177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rednie.eco.unc.edu.ar/files/DT/177.pdf
    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. 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.
    3. Federico Fioravanti & Jordi Massó, 2024. "False-name-proof and strategy-proof voting rules under separable preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 391-408, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    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 Abel Tohm'e, 2022. "Classes of Aggregation Rules for Ethical Decision Making in Automated Systems," Papers 2206.05160, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    2. Arribillaga, R. Pablo & Bonifacio, Agustín G., 2024. "Obvious manipulations of tops-only voting rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 12-24.
    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. Spenkuch, Jörg, 2013. "On the Extent of Strategic Voting," MPRA Paper 50198, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2020. "Agenda Control And Reciprocity In Sequential Voting Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1813-1829, October.
    6. Josheski Dushko & Karamazova Elena, 2021. "Auction theory and a note on game mechanisms," Croatian Review of Economic, Business and Social Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 43-59, May.
    7. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer & René Romen, 2024. "Relaxed notions of Condorcet-consistency and efficiency for strategyproof social decision schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 19-55, August.
    8. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    9. 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.
    10. Fabian R. Pieroth & Martin Bichler, 2022. "$\alpha$-Rank-Collections: Analyzing Expected Strategic Behavior with Uncertain Utilities," Papers 2211.10317, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    11. Elkind, Edith & Grandi, Umberto & Rossi, Francesca & Slinko, Arkadii, 2020. "Cognitive hierarchy and voting manipulation in k-approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 193-205.
    12. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Recovering non-monotonicity problems of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 125-141, January.
    13. ,, 2009. "Strategy-proofness and single-crossing," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(2), June.
    14. Ricardo Martínez & Bernardo Moreno, 2011. "Manipulability in Restricted Separable Domains," Working Papers 2011-01, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    15. Yuliya Veselova, 2016. "The difference between manipulability indices in the IC and IANC models," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 609-638, March.
    16. Marco LiCalzi, 2022. "Bipartite choices," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(2), pages 551-568, December.
    17. Gershkov, Alex & Kleiner, Andreas & Moldovanu, Benny & Shi, Xianwen, 2023. "Voting with interdependent values: The Condorcet winner," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 193-208.
    18. 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.
    19. James Schummer, 1999. "Almost-dominant Strategy Implementation," Discussion Papers 1278, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    20. Siamak F. Shahandashti, 2016. "Electoral Systems Used around the World," Papers 1605.01343, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2016.

    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:aoz:wpaper:177. 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: Laura Inés D Amato (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/redniar.html .

    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.