Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3328526.3329550acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Improved Metric Distortion for Deterministic Social Choice Rules

Published: 17 June 2019 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper, we study the metric distortion of deterministic social choice rules that choose a winning candidate from a set of candidates based on voter preferences. Voters and candidates are located in an underlying metric space. A voter has cost equal to her distance to the winning candidate. Ordinal social choice rules only have access to the ordinal preferences of the voters that are assumed to be consistent with the metric distances. Our goal is to design an ordinal social choice rule with minimum distortion, which is the worst-case ratio, over all consistent metrics, between the social cost of the rule and that of the optimal omniscient rule with knowledge of the underlying metric space. The distortion of the best deterministic social choice rule was known to be between 3 and 5. It had been conjectured that any rule that only looks at the weighted tournament graph on the candidates cannot have distortion better than 5. In our paper, we disprove it by presenting a weighted tournament rule with distortion of 4.236. We design this rule by generalizing the classic notion of uncovered sets, and further show that this class of rules cannot have distortion better than 4.236. We then propose a new voting rule, via an alternative generalization of uncovered sets. We show that if a candidate satisfying the criterion of this voting rule exists, then choosing such a candidate yields a distortion bound of 3, matching the lower bound. We present a combinatorial conjecture that implies distortion of $3$, and verify it for small numbers of candidates and voters by computer experiments. Using our framework, we also show that selecting any candidate guarantees distortion of at most 3 when the weighted tournament graph is cyclically symmetric.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (p245-munagala.mp4)

References

[1]
Elliot Anshelevich, Onkar Bhardwaj, Edith Elkind, John Postl, and Piotr Skowron. 2018. Approximating optimal social choice under metric preferences. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 264 (2018), 27--51.
[2]
Elliot Anshelevich and John Postl. 2017. Randomized social choice functions under metric preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Vol. 58 (2017), 797--827.
[3]
Elliot Anshelevich and Wennan Zhu. 2017. Tradeoffs Between Information and Ordinal Approximation for Bipartite Matching. In Proceedings of 10th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT). 267--279.
[4]
Elliot Anshelevich and Wennan Zhu. 2018. Ordinal Approximation for Social Choice, Matching, and Facility Location Problems Given Candidate Positions. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE). 3--20.
[5]
Craig Boutilier, Ioannis Caragiannis, Simi Haber, Tyler Lu, Ariel D Procaccia, and Or Sheffet. 2015. Optimal social choice functions: A utilitarian view. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 227 (2015), 190--213.
[6]
Ioannis Caragiannis and Ariel D Procaccia. 2011. Voting almost maximizes social welfare despite limited communication. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 175, 9 (2011), 1655.
[7]
Yu Cheng, Shaddin Dughmi, and David Kempe. 2017. Of the people: voting is more effective with representative candidates. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC). ACM, 305--322.
[8]
Yu Cheng, Shaddin Dughmi, and David Kempe. 2018. On the distortion of voting with multiple representative candidates. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) .
[9]
Otto Anderson Davis and Melvin J Hinich. 1966. Some results related to a mathematical model of policy formation in a democratic society .Carnegie Institute of Technology, Graduate School of Industrial Administration.
[10]
James M Enelow and Melvin J Hinich. 1984. The spatial theory of voting: An introduction .CUP Archive.
[11]
James M Enelow and Melvin J Hinich. 1990. Advances in the spatial theory of voting .Cambridge University Press.
[12]
Michal Feldman, Amos Fiat, and Iddan Golomb. 2016. On voting and facility location. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC). ACM, 269--286.
[13]
Peter C Fishburn. 1977. Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM Journal on applied Mathematics, Vol. 33, 3 (1977), 469--489.
[14]
Allan Gibbard. 1973. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society (1973), 587--601.
[15]
Ashish Goel, Reyna Hulett, and Anilesh K. Krishnaswamy. 2018. Relating Metric Distortion and Fairness of Social Choice Rules. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Economics of Networks, Systems and Computation, NetEcon@SIGMETRICS 2018 . 4:1.
[16]
Ashish Goel, Anilesh K Krishnaswamy, and Kamesh Munagala. 2017. Metric distortion of social choice rules: Lower bounds and fairness properties. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC). ACM, 287--304.
[17]
Stephen Gross, Elliot Anshelevich, and Lirong Xia. 2017. Vote Until Two of You Agree: Mechanisms with Small Distortion and Sample Complexity. In Proceedings of the 31th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) . 544--550.
[18]
Samuel Merrill III, Samuel Merrill, and Bernard Grofman. 1999. A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models .Cambridge University Press.
[19]
Hervé Moulin. 1986. Choosing from a tournament. Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 3, 4 (1986), 271--291.
[20]
Ariel D Procaccia and Jeffrey S Rosenschein. 2006. The distortion of cardinal preferences in voting. In International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents. Springer, 317--331.
[21]
Mark Allen Satterthwaite. 1975. Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of economic theory, Vol. 10, 2 (1975), 187--217.
[22]
Norman Schofield. 2007. The spatial model of politics .Routledge.
[23]
Markus Schulze. 2011. A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method. Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 36, 2 (2011), 267--303.
[24]
Piotr Krzysztof Skowron and Edith Elkind. 2017. Social Choice Under Metric Preferences: Scoring Rules and STV. In Proceedings of the 31th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 706--712.
[25]
T Nicolaus Tideman. 1987. Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 4, 3 (1987), 185--206.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Optimized Distortion and Proportional Fairness in VotingACM Transactions on Economics and Computation10.1145/364076012:1(1-39)Online publication date: 19-Jan-2024
  • (2023)On the Distortion of Single Winner Elections with Aligned CandidatesProceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3545946.3598791(1409-1411)Online publication date: 30-May-2023
  • (2023)Generalized Veto Core and a Practical Voting Rule with Optimal Metric DistortionProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3580507.3597798(913-936)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
EC '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
June 2019
947 pages
ISBN:9781450367929
DOI:10.1145/3328526
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 June 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. distortion
  2. metric preferences
  3. social choice

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • NSF
  • Adobe
  • Facebook

Conference

EC '19
Sponsor:
EC '19: ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
June 24 - 28, 2019
AZ, Phoenix, USA

Acceptance Rates

EC '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 106 of 382 submissions, 28%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 664 of 2,389 submissions, 28%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)117
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Optimized Distortion and Proportional Fairness in VotingACM Transactions on Economics and Computation10.1145/364076012:1(1-39)Online publication date: 19-Jan-2024
  • (2023)On the Distortion of Single Winner Elections with Aligned CandidatesProceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3545946.3598791(1409-1411)Online publication date: 30-May-2023
  • (2023)Generalized Veto Core and a Practical Voting Rule with Optimal Metric DistortionProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3580507.3597798(913-936)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
  • (2023)Nearly Optimal Committee Selection For Bias MinimizationProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3580507.3597761(391-410)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
  • (2023)Distortion in metric matching with ordinal preferencesProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3580507.3597740(90-110)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
  • (2023)Best of Both Distortion WorldsProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3580507.3597739(738-758)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
  • (2022)Dynamic fair division with partial informationProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3600270.3600538(3703-3715)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Optimized Distortion and Proportional Fairness in VotingProceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3490486.3538339(563-600)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2022
  • (2022)The metric distortion of multiwinner votingArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2022.103802313(103802)Online publication date: Dec-2022
  • (2022)The distortion of distributed metric social choiceArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2022.103713(103713)Online publication date: Mar-2022
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media