Improved Metric Distortion for Deterministic Social Choice Rules

In this paper, we study the metric distortion of deterministic social choice rules that choose a winning candidate from a set of candidates based on voter preferences. Voters and candidates are located in an underlying metric space. A voter has cost equal to her distance to the winning candidate. Ordinal social choice rules only have access to the ordinal preferences of the voters that are assumed to be consistent with the metric distances. Our goal is to design an ordinal social choice rule with minimum distortion, which is the worst-case ratio, over all consistent metrics, between the social cost of the rule and that of the optimal omniscient rule with knowledge of the underlying metric space. The distortion of the best deterministic social choice rule was known to be between $3$ and $5$. It had been conjectured that any rule that only looks at the weighted tournament graph on the candidates cannot have distortion better than $5$. In our paper, we disprove it by presenting a weighted tournament rule with distortion of $4.236$. We design this rule by generalizing the classic notion of uncovered sets, and further show that this class of rules cannot have distortion better than $4.236$. We then propose a new voting rule, via an alternative generalization of uncovered sets. We show that if a candidate satisfying the criterion of this voting rule exists, then choosing such a candidate yields a distortion bound of $3$, matching the lower bound. We present a combinatorial conjecture that implies distortion of $3$, and verify it for small numbers of candidates and voters by computer experiments. Using our framework, we also show that selecting any candidate guarantees distortion of at most $3$ when the weighted tournament graph is cyclically symmetric.Comment: EC 201

Communication, Distortion, and Randomness in Metric Voting

In distortion-based analysis of social choice rules over metric spaces, one assumes that all voters and candidates are jointly embedded in a common metric space. Voters rank candidates by non-decreasing distance. The mechanism, receiving only this ordinal (comparison) information, should select a candidate approximately minimizing the sum of distances from all voters. It is known that while the Copeland rule and related rules guarantee distortion at most 5, many other standard voting rules, such as Plurality, Veto, or $k$-approval, have distortion growing unboundedly in the number $n$ of candidates. Plurality, Veto, or $k$-approval with small $k$ require less communication from the voters than all deterministic social choice rules known to achieve constant distortion. This motivates our study of the tradeoff between the distortion and the amount of communication in deterministic social choice rules. We show that any one-round deterministic voting mechanism in which each voter communicates only the candidates she ranks in a given set of $k$ positions must have distortion at least $\frac{2n-k}{k}$; we give a mechanism achieving an upper bound of $O(n/k)$, which matches the lower bound up to a constant. For more general communication-bounded voting mechanisms, in which each voter communicates $b$ bits of information about her ranking, we show a slightly weaker lower bound of $\Omega(n/b)$ on the distortion. For randomized mechanisms, it is known that Random Dictatorship achieves expected distortion strictly smaller than 3, almost matching a lower bound of $3-\frac{2}{n}$ for any randomized mechanism that only receives each voter's top choice. We close this gap, by giving a simple randomized social choice rule which only uses each voter's first choice, and achieves expected distortion $3-\frac{2}{n}$.Comment: An abbreviated version appear in Proceedings of AAAI 202

An Analysis Framework for Metric Voting based on LP Duality

Distortion-based analysis has established itself as a fruitful framework for comparing voting mechanisms. m voters and n candidates are jointly embedded in an (unknown) metric space, and the voters submit rankings of candidates by non-decreasing distance from themselves. Based on the submitted rankings, the social choice rule chooses a winning candidate; the quality of the winner is the sum of the (unknown) distances to the voters. The rule's choice will in general be suboptimal, and the worst-case ratio between the cost of its chosen candidate and the optimal candidate is called the rule's distortion. It was shown in prior work that every deterministic rule has distortion at least 3, while the Copeland rule and related rules guarantee worst-case distortion at most 5; a very recent result gave a rule with distortion $2+\sqrt{5} \approx 4.236$. We provide a framework based on LP-duality and flow interpretations of the dual which provides a simpler and more unified way for proving upper bounds on the distortion of social choice rules. We illustrate the utility of this approach with three examples. First, we give a fairly simple proof of a strong generalization of the upper bound of 5 on the distortion of Copeland, to social choice rules with short paths from the winning candidate to the optimal candidate in generalized weak preference graphs. A special case of this result recovers the recent $2+\sqrt{5}$ guarantee. Second, using this generalized bound, we show that the Ranked Pairs and Schulze rules have distortion $\Theta(\sqrt(n))$. Finally, our framework naturally suggests a combinatorial rule that is a strong candidate for achieving distortion 3, which had also been proposed in recent work. We prove that the distortion bound of 3 would follow from any of three combinatorial conjectures we formulate.Comment: 23 pages An abbreviated version appears in Proceedings of AAAI 202

Beyond the worst case: Distortion in impartial culture electorate

{\em Distortion} is a well-established notion for quantifying the loss of social welfare that may occur in voting. As voting rules take as input only ordinal information, they are essentially forced to neglect the exact values the agents have for the alternatives. Thus, in worst-case electorates, voting rules may return low social welfare alternatives and have high distortion. Accompanying voting rules with a small number of cardinal queries per agent may reduce distortion considerably. To explore distortion beyond worst-case conditions, we introduce a simple stochastic model, according to which the values the agents have for the alternatives are drawn independently from a common probability distribution. This gives rise to so-called {\em impartial culture electorates}. We refine the definition of distortion so that it is suitable for this stochastic setting and show that, rather surprisingly, all voting rules have high distortion {\em on average}. On the positive side, for the fundamental case where the agents have random {\em binary} values for the alternatives, we present a mechanism that achieves approximately optimal average distortion by making a {\em single} cardinal query per agent. This enables us to obtain slightly suboptimal average distortion bounds for general distributions using a simple randomized mechanism that makes one query per agent. We complement these results by presenting new tradeoffs between the distortion and the number of queries per agent in the traditional worst-case setting.Comment: 27 pages, 2 figure

Sequential Deliberation for Social Choice

In large scale collective decision making, social choice is a normative study of how one ought to design a protocol for reaching consensus. However, in instances where the underlying decision space is too large or complex for ordinal voting, standard voting methods of social choice may be impractical. How then can we design a mechanism - preferably decentralized, simple, scalable, and not requiring any special knowledge of the decision space - to reach consensus? We propose sequential deliberation as a natural solution to this problem. In this iterative method, successive pairs of agents bargain over the decision space using the previous decision as a disagreement alternative. We describe the general method and analyze the quality of its outcome when the space of preferences define a median graph. We show that sequential deliberation finds a 1.208- approximation to the optimal social cost on such graphs, coming very close to this value with only a small constant number of agents sampled from the population. We also show lower bounds on simpler classes of mechanisms to justify our design choices. We further show that sequential deliberation is ex-post Pareto efficient and has truthful reporting as an equilibrium of the induced extensive form game. We finally show that for general metric spaces, the second moment of of the distribution of social cost of the outcomes produced by sequential deliberation is also bounded

Distortion in Social Choice Problems: The First 15 Years and beyond

The notion of distortion in social choice problems has been defined to measure the loss in efficiency-typically measured by the utilitarian social welfare, the sum of utilities of the participating agents-due to having access only to limited information about the preferences of the agents. We survey the most significant results of the literature on distortion from the past 15 years, and highlight important open problems and the most promising avenues of ongoing and future work