Value Preferences Estimation and Disambiguation in Hybrid Participatory Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Understanding citizens' values in participatory systems is crucial for citizen-centric policy-making. We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices, and AI agents estimate their value preferences by interacting with them. We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants' choices and motivations, and propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants. We operationalize the philosophical stance that "valuing is deliberatively consequential." That is, if a participant's choice is based on a deliberation of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation the participant provides for the choice. Thus, we propose and compare value preferences estimation methods that prioritize the values estimated from motivations over the values estimated from choices alone. Then, we introduce a disambiguation strategy that combines Natural Language Processing and Active Learning to address the detected inconsistencies between choices and motivations. We evaluate the proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and motivations improves the estimation of an individual's value preferences. The disambiguation strategy does not show substantial improvements when compared to similar baselines--however, we discuss how the novelty of the approach can open new research avenues and propose improvements to address the current limitations.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 89 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2024.
Builds on
25 of 89 references.
References · 25
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,801
- 2020A Survey of Deep Active Learningcited by 547
- 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 443
- 2022The 'Problem' of Human Label Variation: On Ground Truth in Data, Modeling and Evaluationcited by 133
- 2021Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computingcited by 129
- 2020RobBERT: a Dutch RoBERTa-based Language Modelcited by 88
- 2016Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligencecited by 74
- 2017Occam's razor is insufficient to infer the preferences of irrational agentscited by 44
- 2022A Survey of Active Learning for Natural Language Processingcited by 40
- 2021ValueNet: A New Dataset for Human Value Driven Dialogue Systemcited by 34
13 more
- 2019MoralStrength: Exploiting a Moral Lexicon and Embedding Similarity for Moral Foundations Predictioncited by 31
- 2018Impossibility and Uncertainty Theorems in AI Value Alignment (or why your AGI should not have a utility function)cited by 22
- 2022The Moral Debater: A Study on the Computational Generation of Morally Framed Argumentscited by 22
- 2017Responsible Autonomycited by 18
- 2018Ordered Preference Elicitation Strategies for Supporting Multi-Objective Decision Makingcited by 17
- 2023Vicarious Offense and Noise Audit of Offensive Speech Classifiers: Unifying Human and Machine Disagreement on What is Offensivecited by 16
- 2023Do Differences in Values Influence Disagreements in Online Discussions?cited by 15
- 2020Taking Principles Seriously: A Hybrid Approach to Value Alignmentcited by 13
- 2021Reason Against the Machine: Future Directions for Mass Online Deliberationcited by 12
- 2019Enabling Value Sensitive AI Systems through Participatory Design Fictionscited by 11
- 2022Learning to Adapt Domain Shifts of Moral Values via Instance Weightingcited by 11
- 2024Morality is Non-Binary: Building a Pluralist Moral Sentence Embedding Space using Contrastive Learningcited by 7
- 2022Negative Human Rights as a Basis for Long-term AI Safety and Regulationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2024On The Stability of Moral Preferences: A Problem with Computational Elicitation Methodscited by 7
- 2024On the Pros and Cons of Active Learning for Moral Preference Elicitationcited by 6
- 2024Facilitating Opinion Diversity through Hybrid NLP Approachescited by 2
- 2025Towards Cognitively-Faithful Decision-Making Models to Improve AI Alignmentcited by 2
- 2025Will Annotators Disagree? Identifying Subjectivity in Value-Laden Argumentscited by 2
- 2025Taking a SEAT: Predicting Value Interpretations from Sentiment, Emotion, Argument, and Topic Annotationscited by 0
- 2026Rules Before Oracles: Auditable, User-Configurable Argument Selection for Deliberative Pollingcited by 0
- 2026Rules Before Oracles: Auditable, User-Configurable Argument Selection for Deliberative Polling25 Aug 2026
- 2025Taking a SEAT: Predicting Value Interpretations from Sentiment, Emotion, Argument, and Topic Annotations2 Oct 2025
- 2025Will Annotators Disagree? Identifying Subjectivity in Value-Laden Arguments8 Sep 2025
- 2025Towards Cognitively-Faithful Decision-Making Models to Improve AI Alignment4 Sep 2025
- 2024On The Stability of Moral Preferences: A Problem with Computational Elicitation Methods5 Aug 2024
- 2024On the Pros and Cons of Active Learning for Moral Preference Elicitation26 Jul 2024
- 2024Facilitating Opinion Diversity through Hybrid NLP Approaches15 May 2024