Modelling the Dynamics of Identity and Fairness in Ultimatum Game
0
🗣️
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Allocation games are zero-sum games that model the distribution of resources among multiple agents.
- This paper explores how an agent's "subjective identity" impacts notions of fairness in allocation.
- The sense of identity can lead to responsible decision-making in non-cooperative, non-zero-sum games, but may exacerbate inequities in allocation.
- The paper introduces a sense of fairness as an innate characteristic of autonomous agency.
Plain English Explanation
In this paper, the researchers investigate how an agent's sense of identity can influence their understanding of fairness when allocating resources. The idea is that an agent's self-identity can promote responsible decision-making in certain contexts, like in the Prisoner's Dilemma. However, when it comes to resource allocation, the agent's sense of identity may actually lead to more unfair distributions, with no rational incentive for the agents to treat each other fairly.
To explore this, the researchers implement the classic Ultimatum Game between two agents, varying both their sense of identity association and their sense of fairness. They study the points at which agents find it no longer rational to identify with the other agent, and instead prioritize their own sense of fairness. This helps distinguish the subtle differences between responsibility and fairness when it comes to autonomous agency.
Technical Explanation
The paper focuses on allocation games, which are zero-sum games that model the distribution of resources among multiple agents. The researchers explore how an agent's "subjective identity" can impact their notions of fairness in these allocation scenarios.
Past research has shown that a sense of identity in agents can lead to responsible decision-making in non-cooperative, non-zero-sum games like the Prisoner's Dilemma. This sense of identity is seen as a desirable feature to incorporate into agent models. However, the researchers find that in the context of resource allocation, this same sense of identity can actually exacerbate inequities, providing no rational incentive for agents to act fairly towards one another.
To investigate this, the researchers implement the Ultimatum Game between two agents. In this game, one agent proposes how to split a resource, and the other agent can either accept or reject the proposal. The researchers vary both the agents' sense of identity association and their sense of fairness, and study the points at which agents find it no longer rational to identify with the other agent, and instead prioritize upholding their own sense of fairness.
This experiment helps the researchers discern the subtle difference between responsibility (as seen in the Prisoner's Dilemma) and fairness when it comes to autonomous agency. The findings suggest that while a sense of identity can promote responsible behavior in some contexts, it may not necessarily align with fairness in resource allocation scenarios.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises some interesting points about the interplay between an agent's sense of identity and their understanding of fairness. The researchers make a compelling case that an agent's identity, while beneficial in certain non-zero-sum games, can actually exacerbate inequities in resource allocation.
One limitation of the study is that it only explores the Ultimatum Game, which is a relatively simple interaction. It would be interesting to see how these dynamics play out in more complex, multi-agent allocation scenarios. Additionally, the paper does not delve into the specific cognitive or psychological mechanisms underlying the agents' decision-making processes. Further research into the cognitive underpinnings of identity, fairness, and resource allocation could provide valuable insights.
That said, the researchers' introduction of a "sense of fairness" as an innate characteristic of autonomous agency is an intriguing concept that deserves further exploration. Untangling the subtle differences between responsibility and fairness in the context of multi-agent systems is an important step towards developing more ethical and equitable AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper investigates the interplay between an agent's sense of identity and their notions of fairness in the context of resource allocation games. The key finding is that while a sense of identity can promote responsible decision-making in some scenarios, it may not align with fairness when it comes to dividing up resources.
The researchers introduce the concept of a "sense of fairness" as an innate characteristic of autonomous agency, and use the Ultimatum Game to explore the trade-offs between identity and fairness. This work highlights the subtle differences between responsibility and fairness in multi-agent systems, and suggests that simply imbuing agents with a sense of identity may not be sufficient for ensuring fair and equitable outcomes.
As AI systems become more sophisticated and autonomous, understanding these dynamics will be crucial for developing ethical and socially responsible artificial agents. The insights from this paper contribute to an important conversation about the role of identity, fairness, and other complex social and psychological factors in the design of next-generation AI.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🗣️
0
Modelling the Dynamics of Identity and Fairness in Ultimatum Game
Janvi Chhabra, Jayati Deshmukh, Arpitha Malavalli, Karthik Sama, Srinath Srinivasa
Allocation games are zero-sum games that model the distribution of resources among multiple agents. In this paper, we explore the interplay between an textit{subjective identity} and its impact on notions of fairness in allocation. The sense of identity in agents is known to lead to responsible decision-making in non-cooperative, non-zero-sum games like Prisoners' Dilemma, and is a desirable feature to add into agent models. However, when it comes to allocation, the sense of identity can be shown to exacerbate inequities in allocation, giving no rational incentive for agents to act fairly towards one another. This lead us to introduce a sense of fairness as an innate characteristic of autonomous agency. For this, we implement the well-known Ultimatum Game between two agents, where their sense of identity association and their sense of fairness are both varied. We study the points at which agents find it no longer rational to identify with the other agent, and uphold their sense of fairness, and vice versa. Such a study also helps us discern the subtle difference between responsibility and fairness when it comes to autonomous agency.
Read more7/8/2024
🛠️
0
Transcending To Notions
Sama Sai Karthik, Jayati Deshmukh, Janvi Chhabra, Arpitha Malavalli, Srinath Srinivasa
Social identities play an important role in the dynamics of human societies, and it can be argued that some sense of identification with a larger cause or idea plays a critical role in making humans act responsibly. Often social activists strive to get populations to identify with some cause or notion -- like green energy, diversity, etc. in order to bring about desired social changes. We explore the problem of designing computational models for social identities in the context of autonomous AI agents. For this, we propose an agent model that enables agents to identify with certain notions and show how this affects collective outcomes. We also contrast between associations of identity with rational preferences. The proposed model is simulated in an application context of urban mobility, where we show how changes in social identity affect mobility patterns and collective outcomes.
Read more7/8/2024
0
What Hides behind Unfairness? Exploring Dynamics Fairness in Reinforcement Learning
Zhihong Deng, Jing Jiang, Guodong Long, Chengqi Zhang
In sequential decision-making problems involving sensitive attributes like race and gender, reinforcement learning (RL) agents must carefully consider long-term fairness while maximizing returns. Recent works have proposed many different types of fairness notions, but how unfairness arises in RL problems remains unclear. In this paper, we address this gap in the literature by investigating the sources of inequality through a causal lens. We first analyse the causal relationships governing the data generation process and decompose the effect of sensitive attributes on long-term well-being into distinct components. We then introduce a novel notion called dynamics fairness, which explicitly captures the inequality stemming from environmental dynamics, distinguishing it from those induced by decision-making or inherited from the past. This notion requires evaluating the expected changes in the next state and the reward induced by changing the value of the sensitive attribute while holding everything else constant. To quantitatively evaluate this counterfactual concept, we derive identification formulas that allow us to obtain reliable estimations from data. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed techniques in explaining, detecting, and reducing inequality in reinforcement learning. We publicly release code at https://github.com/familyld/InsightFair.
Read more4/30/2024
0
Long-Term Fairness in Sequential Multi-Agent Selection with Positive Reinforcement
Bhagyashree Puranik, Ozgur Guldogan, Upamanyu Madhow, Ramtin Pedarsani
While much of the rapidly growing literature on fair decision-making focuses on metrics for one-shot decisions, recent work has raised the intriguing possibility of designing sequential decision-making to positively impact long-term social fairness. In selection processes such as college admissions or hiring, biasing slightly towards applicants from under-represented groups is hypothesized to provide positive feedback that increases the pool of under-represented applicants in future selection rounds, thus enhancing fairness in the long term. In this paper, we examine this hypothesis and its consequences in a setting in which multiple agents are selecting from a common pool of applicants. We propose the Multi-agent Fair-Greedy policy, that balances greedy score maximization and fairness. Under this policy, we prove that the resource pool and the admissions converge to a long-term fairness target set by the agents when the score distributions across the groups in the population are identical. We provide empirical evidence of existence of equilibria under non-identical score distributions through synthetic and adapted real-world datasets. We then sound a cautionary note for more complex applicant pool evolution models, under which uncoordinated behavior by the agents can cause negative reinforcement, leading to a reduction in the fraction of under-represented applicants. Our results indicate that, while positive reinforcement is a promising mechanism for long-term fairness, policies must be designed carefully to be robust to variations in the evolution model, with a number of open issues that remain to be explored by algorithm designers, social scientists, and policymakers.
Read more7/11/2024