Smooth Partial Lotteries for Stable Randomized Selection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20069v2
• Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 17:36:14 GMT
• Title: Smooth Partial Lotteries for Stable Randomized Selection
• Abstract summary: Many organizations have adopted partial lotteries, which randomize selection based on evaluation scores.<n>Existing lottery designs are inherently unstable, as a small change to a single candidate's score can cause large shifts in selection probabilities.<n>We propose smoothness as a design principle for partial lotteries, formalizing it as a Lipschitz condition on the mapping from review scores over candidates to selection probabilities.
• Score: 61.86327960322782
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Competitive selection processes, from scientific funding to admissions and hiring, use evaluations to score candidates, and eventually choose a subset of them based on those scores. Recently, many organizations have adopted partial lotteries, which randomize selection based on evaluation scores. However, existing lottery designs are inherently unstable, as a small change to a single candidate's score can cause large shifts in their selection probabilities. This instability undermines a key goal of lotteries: reducing the influence of fine-grained score distinctions near the decision boundary. We propose smoothness as a design principle for partial lotteries, formalizing it as a Lipschitz condition on the mapping from review scores over candidates to selection probabilities. We introduce the Clipped Linear Lottery, a simple mechanism in which selection probabilities scale linearly with estimated quality between an upper threshold, above which we always accept, and a lower threshold, below which we always reject. We prove that the Clipped Linear Lottery's worst-case regret matches a lower bound for any smooth selection rule up to a factor of $(1 - k/n)$, where $k/n$ is the acceptance rate. We compare smooth selection to other stability notions like Individual Fairness and Differential Privacy, showing that the Clipped Linear Lottery achieves a better smoothness-regret tradeoff than alternatives. Experiments on real peer review data from ICLR 2025, NeurIPS 2024, and the Swiss National Science Foundation demonstrate that existing lottery designs are highly unstable in practice even under perturbations to a single score. Our experiments also confirm the tightness of our theoretical analysis and show that our proposed Clipped Linear Lottery achieves a better smoothness-utility tradeoff than alternatives in practice.

Related papers

• Selective Ensemble Based on Preference-Directed Multi-Objective Bandits [90.75513823660775]
  We formalize a sequential decision problem under partially specified linear preferences.<n>We then propose a preference-directed upper confidence bound (PrefUCB) algorithm.<n> Experiments on large pre-trained model selective ensemble tasks and online asset allocation under institutional mandates validate our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T07:52:46Z)
• Instance-Optimal Estimation with Multiple LLM Judges on a Budget [84.31744861038106]
  We formalize this question as *budgeted heteroskedastic multi-judge estimation*.<n>Given $K$ prompt-response pairs, $J$ judges with known costs, and unknown query-judge variances, the goal is to estimate a bounded score vector while minimizing an $ell_p$-error.<n>We prove that EST-IVWE matches the oracle IVWE rate up to lower-order terms in the budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T08:26:08Z)
• Learning Unanimously Acceptable Lotteries via Queries [17.857261852690346]
  We study a query model where the algorithm proposes lotteries and receives only binary accept/reject feedback.<n>We give deterministic and randomized algorithms that either find a unanimously acceptable lottery or certify infeasibility.<n>We develop learning-augmented algorithms that exploit natural forms of advice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-19T15:51:59Z)
• Robust AI Evaluation through Maximal Lotteries [21.79691527817422]
  We show that maximal lotteries can favor models that severely underperform on specific tasks or user subpopulations.<n>We introduce robust lotteries that optimize worst-case performance under plausible shifts in the preference data.<n>By moving from rankings to pluralistic sets of winners, robust lotteries offer a principled step toward an ecosystem of complementary AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T19:01:11Z)
• Optimistic Feasible Search for Closed-Loop Fair Threshold Decision-Making [0.0]
  We study online learning of a one-dimensional threshold policy from bandit feedback.<n>We propose Optimistic Feasible Search (OFS), a simple grid-based method that maintains confidence bounds for reward and constraint residuals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-26T10:44:40Z)
• Consistency of Selection Strategies for Fraud Detection [0.0]
  We study how insurers can chose which claims to investigate for fraud.<n>We argue that this can lead to inconsistent learning and propose a randomized alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T07:33:33Z)
• A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Funding [61.86327960322782]
  We propose a principled framework for randomized decision-making based on interval estimates of the quality of each item.<n>We introduce MERIT, an optimization-based method that maximizes the worst-case expected number of top candidates selected.<n>We prove that MERIT satisfies desirable axiomatic properties not guaranteed by existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T19:59:30Z)
• Alternates, Assemble! Selecting Optimal Alternates for Citizens' Assemblies [1.5624421399300306]
  Citizens' assemblies are an influential form of deliberative democracy, where randomly selected people discuss policy questions.<n> dropouts are replaced by preselected alternates, but existing methods do not address how to choose these alternates.<n>We introduce an optimization framework for alternate selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T17:48:33Z)
• Decision from Suboptimal Classifiers: Excess Risk Pre- and Post-Calibration [52.70324949884702]
  We quantify the excess risk incurred using approximate posterior probabilities in batch binary decision-making.<n>We identify regimes where recalibration alone addresses most of the regret, and regimes where the regret is dominated by the grouping loss.<n>On NLP experiments, we show that these quantities identify when the expected gain of more advanced post-training is worth the operational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T10:52:36Z)
• Efficient Weighting Schemes for Auditing Instant-Runoff Voting Elections [57.67176250198289]
  AWAIRE involves adaptively weighted averages of test statistics, essentially "learning" an effective set of hypotheses to test. We explore schemes and settings more extensively, to identify and recommend efficient choices for practice. A limitation of the current AWAIRE implementation is its restriction to a small number of candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T10:13:01Z)

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.