Average-Case Analysis of Iterative Voting
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08144v2
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 00:15:56 GMT
- Title: Average-Case Analysis of Iterative Voting
- Authors: Joshua Kavner, Lirong Xia
- Abstract summary: Iterative voting is a natural model of repeated strategic decision-making in social choice.
Prior work has analyzed the efficacy of iterative plurality on the welfare of the chosen outcome at equilibrium.
This work extends average-case analysis to a wider class of distributions and distinguishes when iterative plurality improves or degrades welfare.
- Score: 33.68929251752289
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Iterative voting is a natural model of repeated strategic decision-making in
social choice when agents have the opportunity to update their votes prior to
finalizing the group decision. Prior work has analyzed the efficacy of
iterative plurality on the welfare of the chosen outcome at equilibrium,
relative to the truthful vote profile, via an adaptation of the price of
anarchy. However, prior analyses have only studied the worst- and average-case
performances when agents' preferences are distributed by the impartial culture.
This work extends average-case analysis to a wider class of distributions and
distinguishes when iterative plurality improves or degrades asymptotic welfare.
Related papers
- Achieving Fairness in Predictive Process Analytics via Adversarial Learning [50.31323204077591]
This paper addresses the challenge of integrating a debiasing phase into predictive business process analytics.
Our framework leverages on adversial debiasing is evaluated on four case studies, showing a significant reduction in the contribution of biased variables to the predicted value.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-03T15:56:03Z) - Long-Term Fairness in Sequential Multi-Agent Selection with Positive Reinforcement [21.44063458579184]
In selection processes such as college admissions or hiring, biasing slightly towards applicants from under-represented groups is hypothesized to provide positive feedback.
We propose the Multi-agent Fair-Greedy policy, which balances greedy score and fairness.
Our results indicate that, while positive reinforcement is a promising mechanism for long-term fairness, policies must be designed carefully to be robust to variations in the evolution model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-10T04:03:23Z) - Reduced-Rank Multi-objective Policy Learning and Optimization [57.978477569678844]
In practice, causal researchers do not have a single outcome in mind a priori.
In government-assisted social benefit programs, policymakers collect many outcomes to understand the multidimensional nature of poverty.
We present a data-driven dimensionality-reduction methodology for multiple outcomes in the context of optimal policy learning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-29T08:16:30Z) - The Distortion of Binomial Voting Defies Expectation [26.481697906062095]
We study the expected distortion of voting rules with respect to an underlying distribution over voter utilities.
Our main contribution is the design and analysis of a novel and intuitive rule, binomial voting.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-27T17:50:58Z) - Moral Machine or Tyranny of the Majority? [25.342029326793917]
In Moral Machine project, researchers crowdsourced answers to "Trolley Problems" concerning autonomous vehicles.
Noothigattu et al. proposed inferring linear functions that approximate each individual's preferences and aggregating these linear models by averaging parameters across the population.
In this paper, we examine this averaging mechanism, focusing on fairness concerns in the presence of strategic effects.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-27T00:49:11Z) - Majority Vote for Distributed Differentially Private Sign Selection [9.682477614512157]
We propose a distributed group differentially private Majority Vote mechanism, for the sign selection problem in a distributed setup.
For enhanced applicability, we study the private sign selection for mean estimation and linear regression problems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-08T15:48:24Z) - 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) - Off-Policy Evaluation with Policy-Dependent Optimization Response [90.28758112893054]
We develop a new framework for off-policy evaluation with a textitpolicy-dependent linear optimization response.
We construct unbiased estimators for the policy-dependent estimand by a perturbation method.
We provide a general algorithm for optimizing causal interventions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-02-25T20:25:37Z) - Statistical discrimination in learning agents [64.78141757063142]
Statistical discrimination emerges in agent policies as a function of both the bias in the training population and of agent architecture.
We show that less discrimination emerges with agents that use recurrent neural networks, and when their training environment has less bias.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-21T18:28:57Z) - Selective Classification Can Magnify Disparities Across Groups [89.14499988774985]
We find that while selective classification can improve average accuracies, it can simultaneously magnify existing accuracy disparities.
Increasing abstentions can even decrease accuracies on some groups.
We train distributionally-robust models that achieve similar full-coverage accuracies across groups and show that selective classification uniformly improves each group.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-27T08:51:30Z)
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.