From 7baabe4170c0b1a1614a2efa94f202aff1d77813 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nu=C3=B1o=20Sempere?= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Update Shapley.md --- ea/Shapley.md | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/ea/Shapley.md b/ea/Shapley.md index a71a35e..bf6f5e5 100644 --- a/ea/Shapley.md +++ b/ea/Shapley.md @@ -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: