Unconditionally secure relativistic multi-party biased coin flipping and die rolling

We introduce relativistic multi-party biased die-rolling protocols, generalizing coin flipping to M ≥ 2 parties and to N ≥ 2 outcomes for any chosen outcome biases and show them unconditionally secure. Our results prove that the most general random secure multi-party computation, where all parties receive the output and there is no secret input by any party, can be implemented with unconditional security. Our protocols extend Kent’s (Kent A. 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 , 5382) two-party unbiased coin-flipping protocol, do not require any quantum communication, are practical to implement with current technology and to our knowledge are the first multi-party relativistic cryptographic protocols.

Inconvenient truths in suicide prevention: Why a Restorative Just Culture should be implemented alongside a Zero Suicide Framework

Objective: The prevailing paradigm in suicide prevention continues to contribute to the nihilism regarding the ability to prevent suicides in healthcare settings and a sense of blame following adverse incidents. In this paper, these issues are discussed through the lens of clinicians’ experiences as second victims following a loss of a consumer to suicide, and the lens of health care organisations. Method: We discuss challenges related to the fallacy of risk prediction (erroneous belief that risk screening can be used to predict risk or allocate resources), and incident reviews that maintain a retrospective linear focus on errors and are highly influenced by hindsight and outcome biases. Results: An argument that a Restorative Just Culture should be implemented alongside a Zero Suicide Framework is developed. Conclusions: The current use of algorithms to determine culpability following adverse incidents, and a linear approach to learning ignores the complexity of the healthcare settings and can have devastating effects on staff and the broader healthcare community. These issues represent ‘inconvenient truths’ that must be identified, reconciled and integrated into our future pathways towards reducing suicides in health care. The introduction of Zero Suicide Framework can support the much-needed transition from relying on a retrospective focus on errors (Safety I) to a more prospective focus which acknowledges the complexities of healthcare (Safety II), when based on the Restorative Just Culture principles. Restorative Just Culture replaces backward-looking accountability with a focus on the hurts, needs and obligations of all who are affected by the event. In this paper, we argue that the implementation of Zero Suicide Framework may be compromised if not supported by a substantial workplace cultural change. The process of responding to critical incidents implemented at the Gold Coast Mental Health and Specialist Services is provided as an example of a successful implementation of Restorative Just Culture–based principles that has achieved a culture change required to support learning, improving and healing for our consumers, their families, our staff and broader communities.

Measurement errors in the binary instrumental variable model

Summary Instrumental variable methods can identify causal effects even when the treatment and outcome are confounded. We study the problem of imperfect measurements of the binary instrumental variable, treatment and outcome. We first consider nondifferential measurement errors, that is, the mismeasured variable does not depend on other variables given its true value. We show that the measurement error of the instrumental variable does not bias the estimate, that the measurement error of the treatment biases the estimate away from zero, and that the measurement error of the outcome biases the estimate toward zero. Moreover, we derive sharp bounds on the causal effects without additional assumptions. These bounds are informative because they exclude zero. We then consider differential measurement errors, and focus on sensitivity analyses in those settings.

An Empirical Analysis of Outcome Biases in Constituent Evaluations of Public Policy Decision Makers

This research empirically investigated a phenomenon that may influence the exchange relationship between public policy makers and consumers—the tendency of consumers to exhibit an outcome bias in their evaluations of a public policy maker who makes a decision under uncertainty. An outcome bias occurs when evaluators assess performance based upon the outcome of the decision rather than upon the quality of the decision itself The results of the study revealed that outcome and decision appropriateness information interacted to influence the evaluation of a public policy decision maker, thereby supporting a “weak form” of the outcome bias phenomenon. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of public policy makers marketing their decisions by publicizing the process through which decisions are made.