Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making

We claim that understanding human decisions requires that both automatic and deliberate processes be considered. First, we sketch the qualitative differences between two hypothetical processing systems, an automatic and a deliberate system. Second, we show the potential that connectionism offers for modeling processes of decision making and discuss some empirical evidence. Specifically, we posit that the integration of information and the application of a selection rule are governed by the automatic system. The deliberate system is assumed to be responsible for information search, inferences and the modification of the network that the automatic processes act on. Third, we critically evaluate the multiple-strategy approach to decision making. We introduce the basic assumption of an integrative approach stating that individuals apply an all-purpose rule for decisions but use different strategies for information search. Fourth, we develop a connectionist framework that explains the interaction between automatic and deliberate processes and is able to account for choices both at the option and at the strategy level.System 1, Intuition, Reasoning, Control, Routines, Connectionist Model, Parallel Constraint Satisfaction

Fairness Behind a Veil of Ignorance: A Welfare Analysis for Automated Decision Making

We draw attention to an important, yet largely overlooked aspect of evaluating fairness for automated decision making systems---namely risk and welfare considerations. Our proposed family of measures corresponds to the long-established formulations of cardinal social welfare in economics, and is justified by the Rawlsian conception of fairness behind a veil of ignorance. The convex formulation of our welfare-based measures of fairness allows us to integrate them as a constraint into any convex loss minimization pipeline. Our empirical analysis reveals interesting trade-offs between our proposal and (a) prediction accuracy, (b) group discrimination, and (c) Dwork et al.'s notion of individual fairness. Furthermore and perhaps most importantly, our work provides both heuristic justification and empirical evidence suggesting that a lower-bound on our measures often leads to bounded inequality in algorithmic outcomes; hence presenting the first computationally feasible mechanism for bounding individual-level inequality.Comment: Conference: Thirty-second Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018

Voting by Axioms

We develop an approach for collective decision making from first principles. In this approach, rather than using a---necessarily imperfect---voting rule to map any given scenario where individual agents report their preferences into a collective decision, we identify for every concrete such scenario the most appealing set of normative principles (known as axioms in social choice theory) that would entail a unique decision and then implement that decision. We analyse some of the fundamental properties of this new approach, from both an algorithmic and a normative point of view

Reason Maintenance - Conceptual Framework

This paper describes the conceptual framework for reason maintenance developed as part of WP2

Factors shaping the evolution of electronic documentation systems

The main goal is to prepare the space station technical and managerial structure for likely changes in the creation, capture, transfer, and utilization of knowledge. By anticipating advances, the design of Space Station Project (SSP) information systems can be tailored to facilitate a progression of increasingly sophisticated strategies as the space station evolves. Future generations of advanced information systems will use increases in power to deliver environmentally meaningful, contextually targeted, interconnected data (knowledge). The concept of a Knowledge Base Management System is emerging when the problem is focused on how information systems can perform such a conversion of raw data. Such a system would include traditional management functions for large space databases. Added artificial intelligence features might encompass co-existing knowledge representation schemes; effective control structures for deductive, plausible, and inductive reasoning; means for knowledge acquisition, refinement, and validation; explanation facilities; and dynamic human intervention. The major areas covered include: alternative knowledge representation approaches; advanced user interface capabilities; computer-supported cooperative work; the evolution of information system hardware; standardization, compatibility, and connectivity; and organizational impacts of information intensive environments

Algorithmic Fairness, Algorithmic Discrimination

There has been an explosion of concern about the use of computers to make decisions affecting humans, from hiring to lending approvals to setting prison terms. Many have pointed out that using computer programs to make these decisions may result in the propagation of biases or otherwise lead to undesirable outcomes. Many have called for increased transparency and others have called for algorithms to be tuned to produce more racially balanced outcomes. Attention to the problem is likely to grow as computers make increasingly important and sophisticated decisions in our daily lives. Drawing on both the computer science and legal literature on algorithmic fairness, this paper makes four major contributions to the debate over algorithmic discrimination. First, it provides a legal response to a recent flurry of work in computer science seeking to incorporate fairness in algorithmic decision-makers by demonstrating that legal rules generally apply in the form of side constraints, not fairness functions that can be optimized. Second, by looking at the problem through the lens of discrimination law, the paper recognizes that the problems posed by computational decisionmakers closely resemble the historical, institutional discrimination that discrimination law has evolved to control, a response to the claim that this problem is truly novel because it involves computerized decision-making. Third, the paper responds to calls for transparency in computational decision-making by demonstrating how transparency is unnecessary to providing accountability and that discrimination law itself provides a model for how to deal with cases of unfair algorithmic discrimination, with or without transparency. Fourth, the paper addresses a problem that has divided the literature on the topic: how to correct for discriminatory results produced by algorithms. Rather than seeing the problem as a binary one, I offer a third way, one that disaggregates the process of correcting algorithmic decision-makers into two separate decisions: a decision to reject an old process and a separate decision to adopt a new one. Those two decisions are subject to different legal requirements, providing added flexibility to firms and agencies seeking to avoid the worst kinds of discriminatory outcomes. Examples of disparate outcomes generated by algorithms combined with the novelty of computational decision-making are prompting many to push for new regulations to require algorithmic fairness. But, in the end, current discrimination law provides most of the answers for the wide variety of fairness-related claims likely to arise in the context of computational decision-makers, regardless of the specific technology underlying them

Metaheuristics “In the Large”

Many people have generously given their time to the various activities of the MitL initiative. Particular gratitude is due to Adam Barwell, John A. Clark, Patrick De Causmaecker, Emma Hart, Zoltan A. Kocsis, Ben Kovitz, Krzysztof Krawiec, John McCall, Nelishia Pillay, Kevin Sim, Jim Smith, Thomas Stutzle, Eric Taillard and Stefan Wagner. J. Swan acknowledges the support of UK EPSRC grant EP/J017515/1 and the EU H2020 SAFIRE Factories project. P. GarciaSanchez and J. J. Merelo acknowledges the support of TIN201785727-C4-2-P by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. M. Wagner acknowledges the support of the Australian Research Council grants DE160100850 and DP200102364.Following decades of sustained improvement, metaheuristics are one of the great success stories of opti- mization research. However, in order for research in metaheuristics to avoid fragmentation and a lack of reproducibility, there is a pressing need for stronger scientific and computational infrastructure to sup- port the development, analysis and comparison of new approaches. To this end, we present the vision and progress of the Metaheuristics “In the Large”project. The conceptual underpinnings of the project are: truly extensible algorithm templates that support reuse without modification, white box problem descriptions that provide generic support for the injection of domain specific knowledge, and remotely accessible frameworks, components and problems that will enhance reproducibility and accelerate the field’s progress. We argue that, via such principled choice of infrastructure support, the field can pur- sue a higher level of scientific enquiry. We describe our vision and report on progress, showing how the adoption of common protocols for all metaheuristics can help liberate the potential of the field, easing the exploration of the design space of metaheuristics.UK Research & Innovation (UKRI)Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) EP/J017515/1EU H2020 SAFIRE Factories projectSpanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness TIN201785727-C4-2-PAustralian Research Council DE160100850 DP20010236