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.

We determine sharp bounds on the price of bandit feedback for several variants of the mistake-bound model. The first part of the paper presents bounds on the $r$-input weak reinforcement model and the $r$-input delayed, ambiguous reinforcement model. In both models, the adversary gives $r$ inputs in each round and only indicates a correct answer if all $r$ guesses are correct. The only difference between the two models is that in the delayed, ambiguous model, the learner must answer each input before receiving the next input of the round, while the learner receives all $r$ inputs at once in the weak reinforcement model. In the second part of the paper, we introduce models for online learning with permutation patterns, in which a learner attempts to learn a permutation from a set of permutations by guessing statistics related to sub-permutations. For these permutation models, we prove sharp bounds on the price of bandit feedback.

Written by Dr. Christine Izuakor for Veriato, a cybersecurity company Artificial intelligence (AI) is used all around us and if you've used some sort of voice activated technology to make your life easier, then there was likely some element of AI involved. Some of the most notable examples include Siri, Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant and Tesla semi-autonomous vehicles. Individual consumers no longer have to fumble around in the dark to flip the light switch at home, manually search playlists for songs, or type in a password to get into smartphones. Similarly, businesses can now analyze millions of data records and find trends that can help them predict things like when their assets may require maintenance or what purchasing decisions customers are likely to make. Thanks to AI, there are automation and optimization solutions for almost everything – including some of our most significant technical challenges.