Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract

Recent rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning have raised many questions about the regulatory and governance mechanisms for autonomous machines. Many commentators, scholars, and policy-makers now call for ensuring that algorithms governing our lives are transparent, fair, and accountable. Here, I propose a conceptual framework for the regulation of AI and algorithmic systems. I argue that we need tools to program, debug and maintain an algorithmic social contract, a pact between various human stakeholders, mediated by machines. To achieve this, we can adapt the concept of human-in-the-loop (HITL) from the fields of modeling and simulation, and interactive machine learning. In particular, I propose an agenda I call society-in-the-loop (SITL), which combines the HITL control paradigm with mechanisms for negotiating the values of various stakeholders affected by AI systems, and monitoring compliance with the agreement. In short, `SITL = HITL + Social Contract.'Comment: (in press), Ethics of Information Technology, 201

A hybrid algorithm for coalition structure generation

The current state-of-the-art algorithm for optimal coalition structure generation is IDP-IP—an algorithm that combines IDP (a dynamic programming algorithm due to Rahwan and Jennings, 2008b) with IP (a tree-search algorithm due to Rahwan et al., 2009). In this paper we analyse IDP-IP, highlight its limitations, and then develop a new approach for combining IDP with IP that overcomes these limitations

Real-time internet control of situated human agents

We present an online platform, called BeeMe, designed to test the current boundaries of Internet collective action and problem solving. BeeMe allows a scalable internet crowd of online users to collectively control the actions of a human surrogate acting in physical space. BeeMe demonstrates how intelligent goal-oriented decision-making can emerge from large crowds in quasi real-time. We analyzed data collected from a global BeeMe live performance that involved thousands of individuals, collectively solving a sci-fi Internet mystery. We study simple heuristic algorithms that read in users' chat messages and output human actionable commands representing majority preferences, and compare their performance to the behavior of a human operator solving the same task. Results show that simple heuristics can achieve near-human performance in interpreting the democratic consensus. When human and machine's output differ, the discrepancy is often due to human bias favoring non-representative views. We discuss our results in light of previous work and the contemporary debate on democratic digital systems

Computational Aspects of Extending the Shapley Value to Coalitional Games with Externalities

Until recently, computational aspects of the Shapley value were only studied under the assumption that there are no externalities from coalition formation, i.e., that the value of any coalition is independent of other coalitions in the system. However, externalities play a key role in many real-life situations and have been extensively studied in the game-theoretic and economic literature. In this paper, we consider the issue of computing extensions of the Shapley value to coalitional games with externalities proposed by Myerson [21], Pham Do and Norde [23], and McQuillin [17]. To facilitate efficient computation of these extensions, we propose a new representation for coalitional games with externalities, which is based on weighted logical expressions. We demonstrate that this representation is fully expressive and, sometimes, exponentially more concise than the conventional partition function game model. Furthermore, it allows us to compute the aforementioned extensions of the Shapley value in time linear in the size of the input

Pareto Optimality and Strategy Proofness in Group Argument Evaluation (Extended Version)

An inconsistent knowledge base can be abstracted as a set of arguments and a defeat relation among them. There can be more than one consistent way to evaluate such an argumentation graph. Collective argument evaluation is the problem of aggregating the opinions of multiple agents on how a given set of arguments should be evaluated. It is crucial not only to ensure that the outcome is logically consistent, but also satisfies measures of social optimality and immunity to strategic manipulation. This is because agents have their individual preferences about what the outcome ought to be. In the current paper, we analyze three previously introduced argument-based aggregation operators with respect to Pareto optimality and strategy proofness under different general classes of agent preferences. We highlight fundamental trade-offs between strategic manipulability and social optimality on one hand, and classical logical criteria on the other. Our results motivate further investigation into the relationship between social choice and argumentation theory. The results are also relevant for choosing an appropriate aggregation operator given the criteria that are considered more important, as well as the nature of agents' preferences

Correlation Clustering Based Coalition Formation For Multi-Robot Task Allocation

In this paper, we study the multi-robot task allocation problem where a group of robots needs to be allocated to a set of tasks so that the tasks can be finished optimally. One task may need more than one robot to finish it. Therefore the robots need to form coalitions to complete these tasks. Multi-robot coalition formation for task allocation is a well-known NP-hard problem. To solve this problem, we use a linear-programming based graph partitioning approach along with a region growing strategy which allocates (near) optimal robot coalitions to tasks in a negligible amount of time. Our proposed algorithm is fast (only taking 230 secs. for 100 robots and 10 tasks) and it also finds a near-optimal solution (up to 97.66% of the optimal). We have empirically demonstrated that the proposed approach in this paper always finds a solution which is closer (up to 9.1 times) to the optimal solution than a theoretical worst-case bound proved in an earlier work

Small cities face greater impact from automation

The city has proven to be the most successful form of human agglomeration and provides wide employment opportunities for its dwellers. As advances in robotics and artificial intelligence revive concerns about the impact of automation on jobs, a question looms: How will automation affect employment in cities? Here, we provide a comparative picture of the impact of automation across U.S. urban areas. Small cities will undertake greater adjustments, such as worker displacement and job content substitutions. We demonstrate that large cities exhibit increased occupational and skill specialization due to increased abundance of managerial and technical professions. These occupations are not easily automatable, and, thus, reduce the potential impact of automation in large cities. Our results pass several robustness checks including potential errors in the estimation of occupational automation and sub-sampling of occupations. Our study provides the first empirical law connecting two societal forces: urban agglomeration and automation's impact on employment