Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3580507.3597761acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Nearly Optimal Committee Selection For Bias Minimization

Published: 07 July 2023 Publication History

Abstract

We study the model of metric voting initially proposed by Feldman et al. [2020]. In this model, experts and candidates are located in a metric space, and each candidate possesses a quality that is independent of her location. An expert evaluates each candidate as the candidate's quality less the distance between the candidate and the expert in the metric space. The expert votes for her favorite candidate. Naturally, the expert prefers candidates that are "similar" to herself, i.e., close to her location in the metric space, thus creating bias in the vote. The goal is to select a voting rule and a committee of experts to mitigate the bias. More specifically, given m candidates, what is the minimum number of experts needed to ensure that the voting rule selects a candidate whose quality is at most ε worse than the best one?
Our first main result is a new way to select the committee using exponentially less experts compared to the method proposed in Feldman et al. [2020]. Our second main result is a novel construction that substantially improves the lower bound on the committee size. Indeed, our upper and lower bounds match in terms of m, the number of candidates, and ε, the desired accuracy, for general convex normed spaces, and differ by a multiplicative factor that only depends on the dimension of the underlying normed space but is independent of other parameters of the problem. We further extend the nearly matching upper and lower bounds to the setting in which each expert returns a ranking of her top k candidates and we wish to choose candidates with cumulative quality at most ε worse than that of the best set of candidates, settling an open problem of Feldman et al. [2020]. Finally, we consider the setting where there are multiple rounds of voting. We show that by introducing another round of voting, the number of experts needed to guarantee the selection of an ε-optimal candidate becomes independent of the number of candidates.

References

[1]
Elliot Anshelevich, Onkar Bhardwaj, and John Postl. 2015. Approximating Optimal Social Choice under Metric Preferences. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Austin, Texas) (AAAI'15). AAAI Press, 777--783.
[2]
Elliot Anshelevich and John Postl. 2017. Randomized Social Choice Functions under Metric Preferences. J. Artif. Int. Res. 58, 1 (jan 2017), 797--827.
[3]
Craig Boutilier, Ioannis Caragiannis, Simi Haber, Tyler Lu, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Or Sheffet. 2012. Optimal Social Choice Functions: A Utilitarian View. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (Valencia, Spain) (EC '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 197--214.
[4]
Ioannis Caragiannis, Swaprava Nath, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. 2017. Subset Selection via Implicit Utilitarian Voting. J. Artif. Int. Res. 58, 1 (jan 2017), 123--152.
[5]
Michal Feldman, Yishay Mansour, Noam Nisan, Sigal Oren, and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2020. Designing Committees for Mitigating Biases. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 34, 02 (Apr. 2020), 1942--1949.
[6]
Vasilis Gkatzelis, Daniel Halpern, and Nisarg Shah. 2020. Resolving the Optimal Metric Distortion Conjecture. In 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 1427--1438.
[7]
David Kempe. 2020. An Analysis Framework for Metric Voting based on LP Duality. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 34, 02 (Apr. 2020), 2079--2086.
[8]
Kamesh Munagala and Kangning Wang. 2019. Improved Metric Distortion for Deterministic Social Choice Rules. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (Phoenix, AZ, USA) (EC '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 245--262.
[9]
Ariel D. Procaccia and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein. 2006. The Distortion of Cardinal Preferences in Voting. In Cooperative Information Agents X, Matthias Klusch, Michael Rovatsos, and Terry R. Payne (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 317--331.
[10]
Piotr Skowron and Edith Elkind. 2017. Social Choice Under Metric Preferences: Scoring Rules and STV. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 31, 1 (Feb. 2017).

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
EC '23: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 2023
1253 pages
ISBN:9798400701047
DOI:10.1145/3580507
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 July 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. social choice
  2. metric preferences
  3. multi-winner voting

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

EC '23
Sponsor:
EC '23: 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 9 - 12, 2023
London, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 664 of 2,389 submissions, 28%

Upcoming Conference

EC '25
The 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 7 - 11, 2025
Stanford , CA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 174
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)139
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)36
Reflects downloads up to 26 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media