罗尔斯极值公平与功利主义平衡的公正途径

V. Chen, J. Hooker
{"title":"罗尔斯极值公平与功利主义平衡的公正途径","authors":"V. Chen, J. Hooker","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Numerous AI-assisted resource allocation decisions need to balance the conflicting goals of fairness and efficiency. Our paper studies the challenging task of defining and modeling a proper fairness-efficiency trade off. We define fairness with Rawlsian leximax fairness, which views the lexicographic maximum among all feasible outcomes as the most equitable; and define efficiency with Utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize the sum of utilities received by entities regardless of individual differences. Motivated by a justice-driven trade off principle: prioritize fairness to benefit the less advantaged unless too much efficiency is sacrificed, we propose a sequential optimization procedure to balance leximax fairness and utilitarianism in decision-making. Each iteration of our approach maximizes a social welfare function, and we provide a practical mixed integer/linear programming (MILP) formulation for each maximization problem. We illustrate our method on a budget allocation example. Compared with existing approaches of balancing equity and efficiency, our method is more interpretable in terms of parameter selection, and incorporates a strong equity criterion with a thoroughly balanced perspective.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Just Approach Balancing Rawlsian Leximax Fairness and Utilitarianism\",\"authors\":\"V. Chen, J. Hooker\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3375627.3375844\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Numerous AI-assisted resource allocation decisions need to balance the conflicting goals of fairness and efficiency. Our paper studies the challenging task of defining and modeling a proper fairness-efficiency trade off. We define fairness with Rawlsian leximax fairness, which views the lexicographic maximum among all feasible outcomes as the most equitable; and define efficiency with Utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize the sum of utilities received by entities regardless of individual differences. Motivated by a justice-driven trade off principle: prioritize fairness to benefit the less advantaged unless too much efficiency is sacrificed, we propose a sequential optimization procedure to balance leximax fairness and utilitarianism in decision-making. Each iteration of our approach maximizes a social welfare function, and we provide a practical mixed integer/linear programming (MILP) formulation for each maximization problem. We illustrate our method on a budget allocation example. Compared with existing approaches of balancing equity and efficiency, our method is more interpretable in terms of parameter selection, and incorporates a strong equity criterion with a thoroughly balanced perspective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375844\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375844","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

许多人工智能辅助的资源分配决策需要平衡公平和效率这两个相互冲突的目标。本文研究了定义和建模适当的公平-效率权衡的挑战性任务。我们用罗尔斯的极大公平来定义公平,它认为所有可行结果中的词典最大值是最公平的;用功利主义来定义效率,它寻求使实体获得的效用总和最大化,而不考虑个体差异。基于公正驱动的权衡原则:在不牺牲太多效率的情况下,优先考虑公平以使弱势群体受益,我们提出了一种顺序优化程序来平衡决策中的最大公平和功利主义。我们方法的每次迭代都最大化一个社会福利函数,并且我们为每个最大化问题提供了一个实用的混合整数/线性规划(MILP)公式。我们用一个预算分配的例子来说明我们的方法。与现有的平衡公平和效率的方法相比,我们的方法在参数选择方面更具可解释性,并且在彻底平衡的视角下纳入了强有力的公平标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Just Approach Balancing Rawlsian Leximax Fairness and Utilitarianism
Numerous AI-assisted resource allocation decisions need to balance the conflicting goals of fairness and efficiency. Our paper studies the challenging task of defining and modeling a proper fairness-efficiency trade off. We define fairness with Rawlsian leximax fairness, which views the lexicographic maximum among all feasible outcomes as the most equitable; and define efficiency with Utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize the sum of utilities received by entities regardless of individual differences. Motivated by a justice-driven trade off principle: prioritize fairness to benefit the less advantaged unless too much efficiency is sacrificed, we propose a sequential optimization procedure to balance leximax fairness and utilitarianism in decision-making. Each iteration of our approach maximizes a social welfare function, and we provide a practical mixed integer/linear programming (MILP) formulation for each maximization problem. We illustrate our method on a budget allocation example. Compared with existing approaches of balancing equity and efficiency, our method is more interpretable in terms of parameter selection, and incorporates a strong equity criterion with a thoroughly balanced perspective.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
FairPOT: Balancing AUC Performance and Fairness with Proportional Optimal Transport. Principles and Policy Recommendations for Comprehensive Genetic Data Governance. Bias in Artificial Intelligence Models in Financial Services Privacy Preserving Machine Learning Systems AIES '22: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Oxford, United Kingdom, May 19 - 21, 2021
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1