research-article

Open access

Just Resource Allocation? How Algorithmic Predictions and Human Notions of Justice Interact

Authors:

Patrick J. Fowler,

Yevgeniy VorobeychikAuthors Info & Claims

EC '22: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

Pages 1184 - 1242

https://doi.org/10.1145/3490486.3538305

Published: 13 July 2022 Publication History

Abstract

We examine justice in data-aided decisions in the context of a scarce societal resource allocation problem. Non-experts (recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk) have to determine which homeless households to serve with limited housing assistance. We empirically elicit decision-maker preferences for whether to prioritize more vulnerable households or households who would best take advantage of more intensive interventions. We present three main findings. (1) When vulnerability or outcomes are quantitatively conceptualized and presented, humans (at a single point in time) are remarkably consistent in making either vulnerability- or outcome-oriented decisions. (2) Prior exposure to quantitative outcome predictions has a significant effect and changes the preferences of human decision-makers from vulnerability-oriented to outcome-oriented about one-third of the time. (3) Presenting algorithmically-derived risk predictions in addition to household descriptions reinforces decision-maker preferences. Among the vulnerability-oriented, presenting the risk predictions leads to a significant increase in allocations to the more vulnerable household, whereas among the outcome-oriented it leads to a significant decrease in allocations to the more vulnerable household. These findings emphasize the importance of explicitly aligning data-driven decision aids with system-wide allocation goals.

References

[1]

Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Parag A Pathak, Alvin E Roth, and Tayfun Sönmez. 2005. The Boston public school match. American Economic Review 95, 2 (2005), 368--371.

[2]

Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine Bias. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

[3]

Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The moral machine experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (2018), 59--64.

[4]

Mohammad Javad Azizi, Phebe Vayanos, Bryan Wilder, Eric Rice, and Milind Tambe. 2018. Designing Fair, Efficient, and Interpretable Policies for Prioritizing Homeless Youth for Housing Resources. In Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research. Springer International Publishing, 35--51.

[5]

Boris Babic, Anil Gaba, Ilia Tsetlin, and Robert Winkler. 2022. Normativity, Epistemic Rationality, and Noisy Statistical Evidence. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2022). https://doi.org/10.1086/715196 Forthcoming.

[6]

Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Assessing risk, automating racism. Science 366, 6464 (2019), 421--422.

[7]

Anna Brown, Alexandra Chouldechova, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, Andrew Tobin, and Rhema Vaithianathan. 2019. Toward Algorithmic Accountability in Public Services: A Qualitative Study of Affected Community Perspectives on Algorithmic Decision-Making in Child Welfare Services. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300271

Digital Library

[8]

Molly Brown, Camilla Cummings, Jennifer Lyons, Andrés Carrión, and Dennis P Watson. 2018. Reliability and validity of the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) in real-world implementation. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless 27, 2 (2018), 110--117.

[9]

Hugh A Chipman, Edward I George, Robert E McCulloch, et al . 2010. BART: Bayesian additive regression trees. The Annals of Applied Statistics 4, 1 (2010), 266--298.

[10]

Sam Corbett-Davies and Sharad Goel. 2018. The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1808.00023

[11]

Diane Coyle and Adrian Weller. 2020. "Explaining" machine learning reveals policy challenges. Science 368, 6498 (2020), 1433--1434. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9647

[12]

Courtney Cronley. 2020. Invisible intersectionality in measuring vulnerability among individuals experiencing homelessness--critically appraising the VI-SPDAT. Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness 31, 1 (2020), 23--33.

[13]

Sanmay Das. 2022. Local Justice and the Algorithmic Allocation of Scarce Societal Resources. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[14]

Julia Dressel and Hany Farid. 2018. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances 4, 1 (2018), eaao5580.

[15]

Jon Elster. 1992. Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.

[16]

Danielle Ensign, Sorelle A. Friedler, Scott Neville, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2018. Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policing. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, PMLR 81 (2018), 160--171.

[17]

Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY.

Digital Library

[18]

Rachel Freedman, Jana Schaich Borg, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, John P Dickerson, and Vincent Conitzer. 2020. Adapting a kidney exchange algorithm to align with human values. Artificial Intelligence 283 (2020), 103261.

[19]

Jennifer L Hill. 2011. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 20, 1 (2011), 217--240.

[20]

HUD. 2018. Coordinated Entry Core Elements. https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Coordinated-Entry-Core-Elements.pdf

[21]

Abby Everett Jaques. 2019. Why the moral machine is a monster. In Proceedings of We Robot 2019.

[22]

Jon Kleinberg, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2018. Human decisions and machine predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133, 1 (2018), 237--293.

[23]

Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2017. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores. In Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference.

[24]

Amanda R. Kube, Sanmay Das, and Patrick J. Fowler. 2019. Allocating Interventions Based on Predicted Outcomes: A Case Study on Homelessness Services. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 33 (2019), 622--629.

Digital Library

[25]

Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, et al. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory framework for algorithmic governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--35.

[26]

Irwin Levin, Sandra Schneider, and Gary Gaeth. 1998. All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects,. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (02 1998), 149--188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804

[27]

Zhiyuan "Jerry" Lin, Jongbin Jung, Sharad Goel, and Jennifer Skeem. 2020. The limits of human predictions of recidivism. Science Advances 6, 7 (2020), eaaz0652.

[28]

Michael Lipsky. 1983. Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation.

[29]

Steven Melendez. 2019. How big data could help make it easier for landlords to evict you. https://www.fastcompany.com/90400284/how-big-data-could-help-make-it-easier-for-landlords-to-evict-you

[30]

Geoffrey Nelson, Tim Aubry, Pascale Estecahandy, Christian Laval, Eoin O'Sullivan, Marybeth Shinn, and Sam Tsemberis. 2021. How Social Science Can Influence Homelessness Policy: Experiences from Europe, Canada, and the United States. Part I--Problem and Solutions. European Journal of Homelessness 15, 1 (2021), 131--157.

[31]

Ziad Obermeyer. 2020. Race representation matters in cancer care. The Lancet Digital Health 3 (2020), e408.

[32]

Cathy O'Neil. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Broadway Books, New York, NY.

[33]

Geoff Pleiss, Manish Raghavan, Felix Wu, Jon Kleinberg, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. On Fairness and Calibration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017), 5684--5693.

[34]

Anna Reosti. 2020. "We Go Totally Subjective": Discretion, Discrimination, and Tenant Screening in a Landlord's Market. Law and Social Inquiry 45, 3 (2020), 618--657.

[35]

Valerie Schneider. 2020. Locked out by Big Data: How Big Data Algorithms and Machine Learning May Undermine Housing Justice. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 52 (2020), 251.

[36]

Marybeth Shinn and Molly K Richard. 2022. Allocating Homeless Services After the Withdrawal of the Vulnerability Index--Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool. American Journal of Public Health 112, 3 (2022), 378--382.

[37]

Stephen C Slota, Kenneth R Fleischmann, Sherri Greenberg, Michelle Surka, Keyanna S Evans, James Snow, Sarah Rodriguez, and Tara Zimmerman. 2021. Just infrastructure? Field research on a standardized assessment tool for a continuum of care for people experiencing homelessness. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 58, 1 (2021), 327--336.

[38]

Sarah Tan, Julius Adebayo, Kori Inkpen, and Ece Kamar. 2018. Investigating human + machine complementarity for recidivism predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09123 (2018). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.09123

[39]

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science 185, 4157 (1974), 1124--1131.

[40]

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211, 4481 (1981), 453--458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

[41]

Michelle Vaccaro and Jim Waldo. 2019. The effects of mixing machine learning and human judgment. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 62, 11 (2019), 104--110.

Digital Library

[42]

Phebe Vayanos, Duncan McElfresh, Yingxiao Ye, John Dickerson, and Eric Rice. 2020. Active preference elicitation via adjustable robust optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.01899 (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.01899

Cited By

Tracey PGarcia P(2024)After automation: Homelessness prioritization algorithms and the future of care laborBig Data & Society10.1177/2053951724123904311:1Online publication date: 21-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241239043
Tracey PGarcia P(2024)Intermediation: Algorithmic Prioritization in Practice in Homeless ServicesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869518:CSCW2(1-24)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686951
Mashiat TDiChristofano AFowler PDas S(2024)Beyond Eviction Prediction: Leveraging Local Spatiotemporal Public Records to Inform ActionProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658978(1383-1394)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658978
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Just Resource Allocation? How Algorithmic Predictions and Human Notions of Justice Interact
1. Applied computing
  1. Law, social and behavioral sciences
    1. Economics
    2. Psychology

Recommendations

Fair Resource Allocation for Heterogeneous Tasks
IPDPS '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium

We consider the problem of fair resource allocation for tasks where a resource can be assigned to at most one task, without any fractional allocation. The system is heterogeneous: capacity and cost may vary across resources, and different tasks may have ...
A Credit-Based Allocation Method of Resource Quotas for Cloud Users
CSE '14: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering

Many studies have been conducted on resource allocation and scheduling methods. While these methods seldom give effective measures to prevent resource abuse. To some extent, the restriction of resource quota relieves the problem of resource abuse in ...
Enhanced Fair Joint Multiple Resource Allocation Method in All-IP Networks
WAINA '10: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 24th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops

To support any services in all-IP networks, it is necessary to allocate both computing resource and network resource (bandwidth) simultaneously and effectively. The authors proposed the joint resource allocation method for multiple resource types, ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

EC '22: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

July 2022

1269 pages

ISBN:9781450391504

DOI:10.1145/3490486

General Chair:
David M. Pennock
Rutgers University
,
Program Chairs:
Ilya Segal
Stanford University
,
Sven Seuken
University of Zurich and ETH AI Center

Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGecom: Special Interest Group on Economics and Computation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 July 2022

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

NSF (National Science Foundation)

Conference

EC '22

Sponsor:

SIGecom

EC '22: The 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

July 11 - 15, 2022

CO, Boulder, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 664 of 2,389 submissions, 28%

Upcoming Conference

EC '25

Sponsor:
sigecom

The 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

July 7 - 11, 2025

Stanford , CA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
601
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)316
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)111

Reflects downloads up to 25 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Tracey PGarcia P(2024)After automation: Homelessness prioritization algorithms and the future of care laborBig Data & Society10.1177/2053951724123904311:1Online publication date: 21-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241239043
Tracey PGarcia P(2024)Intermediation: Algorithmic Prioritization in Practice in Homeless ServicesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869518:CSCW2(1-24)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686951
Mashiat TDiChristofano AFowler PDas S(2024)Beyond Eviction Prediction: Leveraging Local Spatiotemporal Public Records to Inform ActionProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658978(1383-1394)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658978
Haque MSaxena DWeathington KChudzik JGuha S(2024)Are We Asking the Right Questions?: Designing for Community Stakeholders’ Interactions with AI in PolicingProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642738(1-20)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642738
Moon EGuha S(2024)A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms in Homelessness ResearchProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642392(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642392
Showkat DSmith ALingqing WTo A(2023)“Who is the right homeless client?”: Values in Algorithmic Homelessness Service Provision and Machine Learning ResearchProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581010(1-21)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581010
Robertson SNguyen THu CAlbiston CNikzad ASalehi N(2023)Expressiveness, Cost, and Collectivism: How the Design of Preference Languages Shapes Participation in Algorithmic Decision-MakingProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580996(1-16)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3580996

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten