personal/nunosempere.github.io
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update Shapley.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Nuño Sempere 2019-09-12 13:01:33 +02:00 committed by GitHub
parent e24e6a0fd5
commit 7baabe4170
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 2 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
ea/Shapley.md
View File

@ -150,6 +150,8 @@ With that in mind, here are our results for the different assumptions:
| 1 | I(k) = 0.99^k | 97.92 | 0 | 97.92 | 195.85 | 97.92 | Yes | 49.15 | 50% |
| 1 | I(k) = 2/k^2 | 3.29 | 0 | 3.29 | 6.58 | 3.29 | Yes | 1.64 | 50% |
CI stands for (pure/naïve) counterfactual impact. Taking into account the above, my best guess is that OpenPhilantropy would be (Shapley-)responsible for something between a third and half of the impact of the projects it funds, because the real world seems to me to be closer to: projects are distributed according to a power law, there are many projects, and within EA OpenPhilantropy is close to a monopoly with respect to funding. OTOH, 2 seems to high an exponent for the power law, perhaps something like 1 - 1.5 would be more realistic.
## An original result pertaining the above:
The Shapley value is too computationally expensive to naïvely calculate; it would require us to consider 2^1011 coalitions. In general, for large values the Shapley value will not be computationally tractable. See, for example: