Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
153 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Metric Distortion of Line-up Elections: The Right Person for the Right Job (2405.04020v2)

Published 7 May 2024 in cs.GT and cs.DS

Abstract: We provide mechanisms and new metric distortion bounds for line-up elections. In such elections, a set of $n$ voters, $m$ candidates, and $\ell$ positions are all located in a metric space. The goal is to choose a set of candidates and assign them to different positions, so as to minimize the total cost of the voters. The cost of each voter consists of the distances from itself to the chosen candidates (measuring how much the voter likes the chosen candidates, or how similar it is to them), as well as the distances from the candidates to the positions they are assigned to (measuring the fitness of the candidates for their positions). Our mechanisms, however, do not know the exact distances, and instead produce good outcomes while only using a smaller amount of information, resulting in small distortion. We consider several different types of information: ordinal voter preferences, ordinal position preferences, and knowing the exact locations of candidates and positions, but not those of voters. In each of these cases, we provide constant distortion bounds, thus showing that only a small amount of information is enough to form outcomes close to optimum in line-up elections.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (38)
  1. Awareness of voter passion greatly improves the distortion of metric social choice. In The 15th Conference on Web and Internet Economics, (WINE), 2019.
  2. Metric-distortion bounds under limited information. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 74:1449–1483, 2022.
  3. Distortion in metric matching with ordinal preferences. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), 2023.
  4. E. Anshelevich and J. Postl. Randomized social choice functions under metric preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 58:797–827, 2017.
  5. E. Anshelevich and S. Sekar. Blind, greedy, and random: Algorithms for matching and clustering using only ordinal information. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2016a.
  6. E. Anshelevich and S. Sekar. Truthful mechanisms for matching and clustering in an ordinal world. In The 12th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), 2016b.
  7. E. Anshelevich and W. Zhu. Tradeoffs between information and ordinal approximation for bipartite matching. Theory of Computing Systems (TOCS), 63(7):1499–1530, 2019.
  8. E. Anshelevich and W. Zhu. Ordinal approximation for social choice, matching, and facility location problems given candidate positions. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, (TEAC), 9(2):1–24, 2021.
  9. Approximating optimal social choice under metric preferences. Artificial Intelligence (AIJ), 264:27–51, 2018.
  10. Distortion in social choice problems: The first 15 years and beyond. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2021.
  11. Improved metric distortion via threshold approvals. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 9460–9468, 2024.
  12. K. Arrow. Advances in the spatial theory of voting. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  13. Social welfare in one-sided matching markets without money. In International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization Problems (APPROX), 2011.
  14. P. Biró. Applications of matching models under preferences. In U. Endriss, editor, Trends in Computational Social Choice, chapter 18, page 345–373. AI Access, 2017.
  15. Line-up elections: Parallel voting with shared candidate pool. In International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT), 2020.
  16. Primarily about primaries. 2019.
  17. Truthful facility assignment with resource augmentation: An exact analysis of serial dictatorship. Mathematical Programming, pages 1–30, 2022a.
  18. The metric distortion of multiwinner voting. Artificial Intelligence (AIJ), 313, 2022b.
  19. The structure of utility in spatial models of voting. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4):1008–1028, 2013.
  20. M. Charikar and P. Ramakrishnan. Metric distortion bounds for randomized social choice. In ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 2022.
  21. Breaking the metric voting distortion barrier. In Proceedings of the 2024 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1621–1640. SIAM, 2024.
  22. Favorite-candidate voting for eliminating the least popular candidate in a metric space. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 34, pages 1894–1901, 2020.
  23. Of the people: voting is more effective with representative candidates. In ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), 2017.
  24. On the distortion of voting with multiple representative candidates. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2018.
  25. Social welfare in one-sided matching mechanisms. In Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Conference (AAMAS), 2016.
  26. Optimized distortion and proportional fairness in voting. In ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), 2022.
  27. J. Enelow and M. Hinich. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1984.
  28. On voting and facility location. In ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), 2016.
  29. On the distortion value of the elections with abstention. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2019.
  30. Resolving the optimal metric distortion conjecture. In IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2020.
  31. Metric distortion of social choice rules: Lower bounds and fairness properties. In ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), 2017.
  32. Relating metric distortion and fairness of social choice rules. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Economics of Networks, Systems and Computation (NetEcon), 2018.
  33. Vote until two of you agree: Mechanisms with small distortion and sample complexity. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2017.
  34. Proportional representation in metric spaces and low-distortion committee selection. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 38, pages 9815–9823, 2024.
  35. F. E. Kizilkaya and D. Kempe. Plurality veto: A simple voting rule achieving optimal metric distortion. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2022.
  36. G. Pierczynski and P. Skowron. Approval-based elections and distortion of voting rules. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2019.
  37. N. Schofield. The spatial model of politics. Routledge, 2007.
  38. P. Skowron and E. Elkind. Social choice under metric preferences: Scoring rules and stv. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2017.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.