Indecision Modeling

AI systems are often used to make or contribute to important decisions in a growing range of applications, including criminal justice, hiring, and medicine. Since these decisions impact human lives, it is important that the AI systems act in ways which align with human values. Techniques for preference modeling and social choice help researchers learn and aggregate peoples' preferences, which are used to guide AI behavior; thus, it is imperative that these learned preferences are accurate. These techniques often assume that people are willing to express strict preferences over alternatives; which is not true in practice. People are often indecisive, and especially so when their decision has moral implications. The philosophy and psychology literature shows that indecision is a measurable and nuanced behavior -- and that there are several different reasons people are indecisive. This complicates the task of both learning and aggregating preferences, since most of the relevant literature makes restrictive assumptions on the meaning of indecision. We begin to close this gap by formalizing several mathematical \emph{indecision} models based on theories from philosophy, psychology, and economics; these models can be used to describe (indecisive) agent decisions, both when they are allowed to express indecision and when they are not. We test these models using data collected from an online survey where participants choose how to (hypothetically) allocate organs to patients waiting for a transplant.

[1]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Statistical Foundations of Virtual Democracy , 2019, ICML.

[2]  D. White,et al.  The ethics and reality of rationing in medicine. , 2011, Chest.

[3]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  A PAC Framework for Aggregating Agents' Judgments , 2019, AAAI.

[4]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Moral Decision Making Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence , 2017, ISAIM.

[5]  Martin Shubik,et al.  Game Theory in Economics: Chapter 4, Preferences and Utility , 1974 .

[6]  A. Furnham,et al.  The allocation of scarce medical resources across medical conditions. , 2002, Psychology and psychotherapy.

[7]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Incompleteness and incomparability in preference aggregation: Complexity results , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Alan Donagan,et al.  Consistency in Rationalist Moral Systems , 1984 .

[9]  R Fox,et al.  Moral dilemmas. , 1998, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[10]  A. Furnham,et al.  Decisions concerning the allocation of scarce medical resources. , 2000, Journal of social behavior and personality.

[11]  Avrim Blum,et al.  Preference Elicitation and Query Learning , 2004, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[12]  R F Atkinson,et al.  Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method and Point , 1982 .

[13]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

[14]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies , 2012 .

[15]  H. Sebastian Seung,et al.  Selective Sampling Using the Query by Committee Algorithm , 1997, Machine Learning.

[16]  John P. Dickerson,et al.  Balancing Lexicographic Fairness and a Utilitarian Objective with Application to Kidney Exchange , 2017, AAAI.

[17]  Kate Larson,et al.  Conventional Machine Learning for Social Choice , 2015, AAAI.

[18]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Preference Elicitation For General Random Utility Models , 2013, UAI.

[19]  P. Railton Pluralism, Determinacy, and Dilemma , 1992, Ethics.

[20]  C. Krauth,et al.  Public, medical professionals’ and patients’ preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments , 2018, BMJ Open.

[21]  Equilibrium Allocations Under Alternative Waitlist Designs: Evidence from Deceased Donor Kidneys , 2019, Econometrica : journal of the Econometric Society.

[22]  D. Zakay "To Choose or Not to Choose": On Choice Strategy in Face of a Single Alternative , 1984 .

[23]  I. Sobol On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals , 1967 .

[24]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Fairness in Deceased Organ Matching , 2018, AIES.

[25]  G. Gerasimou Indecisiveness, Undesirability and Overload Revealed Through Rational Choice Deferral , 2018 .

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision , 1992 .

[27]  Francesco Mancini,et al.  Moral choices: The influence of the "Do not play God" principle , 2013, CogSci.

[28]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions , 1998 .

[29]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[30]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Adapting a Kidney Exchange Algorithm to Align with Human Values , 2018, AAAI.

[31]  Lawrence G. Sager Handbook of Computational Social Choice , 2015 .

[32]  D. Mochon Single-Option Aversion , 2013 .

[33]  Ruth Chang,et al.  The Possibility of Parity* , 2002, Ethics.