arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2211.00056

How fair were COVID-19 restriction decisions? A data-driven investigation of England using the dominance-based rough sets approach

Edward Abel·Sajid Siraj
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries have taken the approach of tiered restrictions which has remained a point of debate due to a lack of transparency. Using the dominance-based rough set approach, we identify patterns in the COVID-19 data pertaining to the UK government's tiered restrictions allocation system. These insights from the analysis are translated into "if-then" type rules, which can easily be interpreted by policy makers. The differences in the rules extracted from different geographical areas suggest inconsistencies in the allocations of tiers in these areas. We found that the differences delineated an overall north south divide in England, however, this divide was driven mostly by London. Based on our analysis, we demonstrate the usefulness of the dominance-based rough sets approach for investigating the fairness and explainabilty of decision making regarding COVID-19 restrictions. The proposed approach and analysis could provide a more transparent approach to localised public health restrictions, which can help ensure greater conformity to the public safety rules.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Edward Abel, Sajid Siraj. 2022-10-21. How fair were COVID-19 restriction decisions? A data-driven investigation of England using the dominance-based rough sets approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.00056

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Measuring Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Content Generation

With the growing prevalence of generative artificial intelligence (AI), an increasing amount of content is no longer exclusively generated by humans but by generative AI models with human guidance. This shift presents notable challenges for the delineation of originality due to the varying degrees of human contribution in AI-assisted works. This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation and introduces a framework to address this question that is grounded in information theory. By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation. Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed measure effectively discriminates between varying degrees of human contribution across multiple creative domains. We hope that this work lays a foundation for measuring human contributions in AI-assisted content generation in the era of generative AI.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Do Agents Repair When Challenged -- or Just Reply? Challenge, Repair, and Public Correction in a Deployed Agent Forum

As large language model (LLM) agents enter public forums, a key question is whether those forums sustain challenge, repair, and public correction, or merely produce norm-like language. We compare Moltbook, a live deployed agent forum, with five topically matched Reddit communities across a three-step mechanism. Relative to Reddit, Moltbook discussions are roughly ten times less threaded, leaving far fewer chances for challenge and response. When challenges do occur, the original author almost never returns (1.2\% vs.\ 40.9\% on Reddit), multi-turn continuation is nearly absent ($<$0.1\% vs.\ 38.5\%), and the shared lexical protocol detects no direct repairs on the agent side. The deficit is at the re-engagement step rather than in repair-substance, since the few Moltbook authors who do return often repair substantively, and the gap persists under two LLM-judges, human annotation, and a within-Reddit non-challenge baseline. Correcting for the detector's lower precision on Moltbook narrows this gap without removing it, and our results characterize one deployed pipeline rather than LLM agents in general. Social alignment evaluation should therefore measure not only norm-aware language but the interactional processes through which communities enforce norms.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Dataset repurposing and disruptive AI research

Technological advancements are enabling increasingly systematic and large-scale data collection across all areas of science, driving scientific innovation. In particular, AI research exemplifies this trend, having advanced rapidly through the assembly of massive datasets used to train and evaluate machine learning models. However, the escalating demand for data, the difficulty of creating high-quality datasets, and the exhaustion of easily accessible data sources in AI research raise important questions about how to maximize the value of existing datasets through recombination and repurposing. Here, we draw on two theoretical frameworks---recombinational novelty and transformational creativity---to examine the practice of data repurposing and its scientific impact. Focusing on AI, we analyze scientific outcomes associated with data repurposing across more than 10,000 machine learning papers. First, we find that although most repurposed datasets do not achieve broad visibility in the short term, data repurposing is associated with greater disruption. Second, when repurposed data is adopted by subsequent research, the repurposing paper is associated with higher disruption and increased citation impact. Third, repurposing teams tend to be more experienced, more institutionally prestigious, and involve academic--industry collaboration. However, team characteristics poorly predict which repurposed datasets will be adopted by the community. These findings suggest that data repurposing may be an important approach to scientific discovery, and that its successful adoption is more common among larger teams and collaborations spanning academia and industry.

cs.CY↗