Proportionality in Thumbs Up and Down Voting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01985v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 19:02:37 GMT
• Title: Proportionality in Thumbs Up and Down Voting
• Authors: Sonja Kraiczy, Georgios Papasotiropoulos, Grzegorz Pierczyński, Piotr Skowron,
• Abstract summary: We propose two conceptually distinct approaches to interpret proportionality in the presence of up and down votes.<n>The first approach treats the satisfaction from electing candidates as comparable, leading to combined proportionality guarantees.<n>The second approach considers veto power separately, introducing guarantees distinct from traditional proportionality.
• Score: 20.84797796151438
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Consider the decision-making setting where agents elect a panel by expressing both positive and negative preferences. Prominently, in constitutional AI, citizens democratically select a slate of ethical preferences on which a foundation model is to be trained. There, in practice, agents may both approve and disapprove of different ethical principles. Proportionality has been well-studied in computational social choice for approval ballots, but its meaning remains unclear when negative sentiments are also considered. In this work, we propose two conceptually distinct approaches to interpret proportionality in the presence of up and down votes. The first approach treats the satisfaction from electing candidates and the impact of vetoing them as comparable, leading to combined proportionality guarantees. The second approach considers veto power separately, introducing guarantees distinct from traditional proportionality. We formalize axioms for each perspective and examine their satisfiability by suitable adaptations of Phragm\'en's rule, Proportional Approval Voting rule and the Method of Equal Shares.

Related papers

• Optimal bounds for dissatisfaction in perpetual voting [84.02572742131521]
  We consider a perpetual approval voting method that guarantees that no voter is dissatisfied too many times.<n>We identify a sufficient condition on voter behavior under which a sublinear growth of dissatisfaction is possible.<n>We present a voting method with sublinear guarantees on dissatisfaction under bounded conflicts, based on the standard techniques from prediction with expert advice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T19:58:55Z)
• Policy Aggregation [21.21314301021803]
  We consider the challenge of AI value alignment with multiple individuals with different reward functions and optimal policies in an underlying Markov decision process. We formalize this problem as one of policy aggregation, where the goal is to identify a desirable collective policy. Key insight is that social choice methods can be reinterpreted by identifying ordinal preferences with volumes of subsets of the state-action occupancy polytope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T04:19:50Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models by On-Policy Self-Judgment [49.31895979525054]
  Existing approaches for aligning large language models with human preferences face a trade-off that requires a separate reward model (RM) for on-policy learning. We present a novel alignment framework, SELF-JUDGE, that does on-policy learning and is parameter efficient. We show that the rejecting sampling by itself can improve performance further without an additional evaluator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T11:25:26Z)
• The Decisive Power of Indecision: Low-Variance Risk-Limiting Audits and Election Contestation via Marginal Mark Recording [51.82772358241505]
  Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are techniques for verifying the outcomes of large elections. We define new families of audits that improve efficiency and offer advances in statistical power. New audits are enabled by revisiting the standard notion of a cast-vote record so that it can declare multiple possible mark interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T16:23:54Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Proportional Aggregation of Preferences for Sequential Decision Making [20.374669324368625]
  We study the problem of fair sequential decision making given voter preferences. In each round, a decision rule must choose a decision from a set of alternatives where each voter reports which of these alternatives they approve. We formalize this aim using axioms based on Proportional Justified Representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-26T17:10:10Z)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• Group Fairness in Prediction-Based Decision Making: From Moral Assessment to Implementation [0.0]
  We introduce a framework for the moral assessment of what fairness means in a given context. We map the assessment's results to established statistical group fairness criteria. We extend the FEC principle to cover all types of group fairness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-19T10:44:21Z)
• A Justice-Based Framework for the Analysis of Algorithmic Fairness-Utility Trade-Offs [0.0]
  In prediction-based decision-making systems, different perspectives can be at odds. The short-term business goals of the decision makers are often in conflict with the decision subjects' wish to be treated fairly. We propose a framework to make these value-laden choices clearly visible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-06T20:31:55Z)

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.