Fairly Allocating Utility in Constrained Multiwinner Elections

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.12820v1
• Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:04:26 GMT
• Title: Fairly Allocating Utility in Constrained Multiwinner Elections
• Authors: Kunal Relia
• Abstract summary: A common denominator to ensure fairness across all such contexts is the use of constraints. Across these contexts, the candidates selected to satisfy the given constraints may systematically lead to unfair outcomes for historically disadvantaged voter populations. We develop a model to select candidates that satisfy the constraints fairly across voter populations.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Fairness in multiwinner elections is studied in varying contexts. For instance, diversity of candidates and representation of voters are both separately termed as being fair. A common denominator to ensure fairness across all such contexts is the use of constraints. However, across these contexts, the candidates selected to satisfy the given constraints may systematically lead to unfair outcomes for historically disadvantaged voter populations as the cost of fairness may be borne unequally. Hence, we develop a model to select candidates that satisfy the constraints fairly across voter populations. To do so, the model maps the constrained multiwinner election problem to a problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods. We propose three variants of the model, namely, global, localized, and inter-sectional. Next, we analyze the model's computational complexity, and we present an empirical analysis of the utility traded-off across various settings of our model across the three variants and discuss the impact of Simpson's paradox using synthetic datasets and a dataset of voting at the United Nations. Finally, we discuss the implications of our work for AI and machine learning, especially for studies that use constraints to guarantee fairness.

Related papers

• Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
  This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
• Learning Fair Policies for Multi-stage Selection Problems from Observational Data [4.282745020665833]
  We consider the problem of learning fair policies for multi-stage selection problems from observational data. This problem arises in several high-stakes domains such as company hiring, loan approval, or bail decisions where outcomes are only observed for those selected. We propose a multi-stage framework that can be augmented with various fairness constraints, such as demographic parity or equal opportunity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-20T16:33:15Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Tackling Diverse Minorities in Imbalanced Classification [80.78227787608714]
  Imbalanced datasets are commonly observed in various real-world applications, presenting significant challenges in training classifiers. We propose generating synthetic samples iteratively by mixing data samples from both minority and majority classes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework through extensive experiments conducted on seven publicly available benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T18:48:34Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• On the Complexity of Finding a Diverse and Representative Committee using a Monotone, Separable Positional Multiwinner Voting Rule [0.0]
  A growing line of research in computational social choice concerns the use of constraints to ensure fairness in elections. Recent work proposed a model to find a diverse emphand representative committee and studied the model's computational aspects. Here, we classify the complexity of finding a diverse and representative committee using a monotone, separable positional multiwinner voting rule.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T18:56:44Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Fairness in Selection Problems with Strategic Candidates [9.4148805532663]
  We study how the strategic aspect affects fairness in selection problems. A population of rational candidates compete by choosing an effort level to increase their quality. We characterize the (unique) equilibrium of this game in the different parameters' regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T17:03:32Z)
• DiRe Committee : Diversity and Representation Constraints in Multiwinner Elections [0.0]
  We develop a model, DiRe Committee Winner Determination (DRCWD), which delineates candidate and voter attributes to select a committee. We develop a feasibility-based algorithm, which finds the winning DiRe committee in under two minutes on 63% of the instances of synthetic datasets and on 100% of instances of real-world datasets. Overall, DRCWD motivates that a study of multiwinner elections should consider both its actors, namely candidates and voters, as candidate-specific "fair" models can unknowingly harm voter populations, and vice versa.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-15T14:32:56Z)
• On Fair Selection in the Presence of Implicit Variance [17.517529275692322]
  We argue that even in the absence of implicit bias, the estimates of candidates' quality from different groups may differ in another fundamental way, namely, in their variance. We propose a simple model in which candidates have a true latent quality that is drawn from a group-independent normal distribution. We show that the demographic parity mechanism always increases the selection utility, while any $gamma$-rule weakly increases it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-24T13:08:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.