Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problem

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.23097v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 11:35:06 GMT
• Title: Fairness in the Multi-Secretary Problem
• Authors: Georgios Papasotiropoulos, Zein Pishbin,
• Abstract summary: It studies the multi-secretary problem through the fairness lens of social choice, and examines multi-winner elections from the viewpoint of online decision making.<n>It proposes a set of mechanisms that merge techniques from online algorithms with rules from social choice.
• Score: 3.2442879131520113
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper bridges two perspectives: it studies the multi-secretary problem through the fairness lens of social choice, and examines multi-winner elections from the viewpoint of online decision making. After identifying the limitations of the prominent proportionality notion of Extended Justified Representation (EJR) in the online domain, the work proposes a set of mechanisms that merge techniques from online algorithms with rules from social choice -- such as the Method of Equal Shares and the Nash Rule -- and supports them through both theoretical analysis and extensive experimental evaluation.

Related papers

• Towards Uniformity and Alignment for Multimodal Representation Learning [66.87764574237532]
  We identify two conflicts in the multimodal regime, both exacerbated as the number of modalities increases.<n>We propose a principled decoupling of alignment and uniformity for multimodal representations.<n>We then provide a theoretical guarantee that our method acts as an efficient proxy for a global Hlder divergence over multiple modality distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T08:08:07Z)
• What Voting Rules Actually Do: A Data-Driven Analysis of Multi-Winner Voting [5.880273374889066]
  We propose a data-driven framework to evaluate how frequently voting rules violate axioms across diverse preference distributions.<n>We show that neural networks, acting as voting rules, can outperform traditional rules in minimizing axiom violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T16:54:09Z)
• RBF++: Quantifying and Optimizing Reasoning Boundaries across Measurable and Unmeasurable Capabilities for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [60.84707424369494]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has proven effective in enhancing large language models (LLMs) on complex tasks.<n>We introduce the Reasoning Boundary Framework++ (RBF++), a framework for evaluating and optimizing measurable boundaries of CoT capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T16:25:55Z)
• Offline Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning via Score Decomposition [51.23590397383217]
  offline cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) faces unique challenges due to distributional shifts.<n>This work is the first work to explicitly address the distributional gap between offline and online MARL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T11:42:31Z)
• A Survey of Frontiers in LLM Reasoning: Inference Scaling, Learning to Reason, and Agentic Systems [93.8285345915925]
  Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that enables logical inference, problem-solving, and decision-making.<n>With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), reasoning has emerged as a key capability that distinguishes advanced AI systems.<n>We categorize existing methods along two dimensions: (1) Regimes, which define the stage at which reasoning is achieved; and (2) Architectures, which determine the components involved in the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T01:27:49Z)
• Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: A Comprehensive Survey [124.23247710880008]
  multimodal CoT (MCoT) reasoning has recently garnered significant research attention.<n>Existing MCoT studies design various methodologies to address the challenges of image, video, speech, audio, 3D, and structured data.<n>We present the first systematic survey of MCoT reasoning, elucidating the relevant foundational concepts and definitions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-16T18:39:13Z)
• Bridging Voting and Deliberation with Algorithms: Field Insights from vTaiwan and Kultur Komitee [1.2277343096128712]
  Democratic processes increasingly aim to integrate large-scale voting with face-to-face deliberation.<n>This work introduces new methods that use algorithms and computational tools to bridge online voting with face-to-face deliberation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T15:45:13Z)
• Social Choice for Heterogeneous Fairness in Recommendation [9.753088666705985]
  Algorithmic fairness in recommender systems requires close attention to the needs of a diverse set of stakeholders. Previous work has often been limited by fixed, single-objective definitions of fairness. Our work approaches recommendation fairness from the standpoint of computational social choice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T17:01:18Z)
• The Cost of Arbitrariness for Individuals: Examining the Legal and Technical Challenges of Model Multiplicity [4.514832807541816]
  This paper explores various individual concerns stemming from multiplicity, including the effects of arbitrariness beyond final predictions. It provides both an empirical examination of these concerns and a comprehensive analysis from the legal standpoint, addressing how these issues are perceived in the anti-discrimination law in Canada. We conclude the discussion with technical challenges in the current landscape of model multiplicity to meet legal requirements and the legal gap between current law and the implications of arbitrariness in model selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T21:54:03Z)
• Fair Enough: Standardizing Evaluation and Model Selection for Fairness Research in NLP [64.45845091719002]
  Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct. This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T14:54:00Z)
• Online Learning under Budget and ROI Constraints via Weak Adaptivity [57.097119428915796]
  Existing primal-dual algorithms for constrained online learning problems rely on two fundamental assumptions. We show how such assumptions can be circumvented by endowing standard primal-dual templates with weakly adaptive regret minimizers. We prove the first best-of-both-worlds no-regret guarantees which hold in absence of the two aforementioned assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T16:30:33Z)
• 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)
• Contestable Black Boxes [10.552465253379134]
  This paper investigates the type of assurances that are needed in the contesting process when algorithmic black-boxes are involved. We argue that specialised complementary methodologies to evaluate automated decision-making in the case of a particular decision being contested need to be developed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-09T09:09:00Z)

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.