about
Dealing with Expert Bias in Collective Decision-Making (arxiv.org)
1 point by belter on Jun 28, 2021 | hide | past | pdf | 1 comment on HN

In plain words: A trial-and-error scheme tests options repeatedly and down-weights biased experts' votes, so a group's pooled judgment still finds the best choice. Instead of hunting for one reliable expert, it reaches a higher final score and settles faster, especially when all experts' advice worsens.

Abstract

Quite some real-world problems can be formulated as decision-making problems wherein one must repeatedly make an appropriate choice from a set of alternatives. Multiple expert judgements, whether human or artificial, can help in taking correct decisions, especially when exploration of alternative solutions is costly. As expert opinions might deviate, the problem of finding the right alternative can be approached as a collective decision making problem (CDM) via aggregation of independent judgements. Current state-of-the-art approaches focus on efficiently finding the optimal expert, and thus perform poorly if all experts are not qualified or if they are overly biased, thereby potentially derailing the decision-making process. In this paper, we propose a new algorithmic approach based on contextual multi-armed bandit problems (CMAB) to identify and counteract such biased expertise. We explore homogeneous, heterogeneous and polarised expert groups and show that this approach is able to effectively exploit the collective expertise, outperforming state-of-the-art methods, especially when the quality of the provided expertise degrades. Our novel CMAB-inspired approach achieves a higher final performance and does so while converging more rapidly than previous adaptive algorithms.

Axel Abels, Tom Lenaerts, Vito Trianni, Ann Nowé
arXiv:2106.13539 · cs.AI, cs.LG · submitted Jun 25, 2021 · updated Aug 29, 2022
abstract · pdf · html

add comment on HN

"Quite some real-world problems can be formulated as decision-making problems wherein one must repeatedly make an appropriate choice from a set of alternatives. Expert judgments, whether human or artificial, can help in taking correct decisions, especially when exploration of alternative solutions is costly. As expert opinions might deviate, the problem of finding the right alternative can be approached as a collective decision making problem (CDM). Current state-of-the-art approaches to solve CDM are limited by the quality of the best expert in the group, and perform poorly if experts are not qualified or if they are overly biased, thus potentially derailing the decision-making process. In this paper, we propose a new algorithmic approach based on contextual multi-armed bandit problems (CMAB) to identify and counteract such biased expertises. We explore homogeneous, heterogeneous and polarised expert groups and show that this approach is able to effectively exploit the collective expertise, irrespective of whether the provided advice is directly conducive to good performance, outperforming state-of-the-art methods, especially when the quality of the provided expertise degrades. Our novel CMAB-inspired approach achieves a higher final performance and does so while converging more rapidly than previous adaptive algorithms, especially when heterogeneous expertise is readily available."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.13539.pdf