Generalized Scoring Rules Paper by Lirong Xia and Vincent Conitzer Presentation by Yosef Treitman.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 10: The Manipulability of Voting Systems Lesson Plan
Advertisements

On the Robustness of Preference Aggregation in Noisy Environments Ariel D. Procaccia, Jeffrey S. Rosenschein and Gal A. Kaminka.
Common Voting Rules as Maximum Likelihood Estimators Vincent Conitzer (Joint work with Tuomas Sandholm) Early version of this work appeared in UAI-05.
Presented by: Katherine Goulde
Voting and social choice Vincent Conitzer
Speaker: Ariel Procaccia 1 Joint work with: Ioannis Caragiannis 2, Jason Covey 3, Michal Feldman 1, Chris Homan 3, Christos Kaklamanis 2, Nikos Karanikolas.
How “impossible” is it to design a Voting rule? Angelina Vidali University of Athens.
IMPOSSIBILITY AND MANIPULABILITY Section 9.3 and Chapter 10.
CS 886: Electronic Market Design Social Choice (Preference Aggregation) September 20.
Chapter 1: Methods of Voting
Mathematics The study of symbols, shapes, algorithms, sets, and patterns, using logical reasoning and quantitative calculation. Quantitative Reasoning:
Computing Kemeny and Slater Rankings Vincent Conitzer (Joint work with Andrew Davenport and Jayant Kalagnanam at IBM Research.)
Arrow’s impossibility theorem EC-CS reading group Kenneth Arrow Journal of Political Economy, 1950.
MAT 105 Spring  There are many more methods for determining the winner of an election with more than two candidates  We will only discuss a few.
Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Michelle Blessing February 23, 2010 Michelle Blessing February 23, 2010.
Excursions in Modern Mathematics Sixth Edition
Lirong Xia Friday, May 2, 2014 Introduction to Social Choice.
The Plurality Method The Borda Count Method
But, how?? Explaining all possible positional, pairwise voting paradoxes & prop. Don Saari Institute for Math Behavioral Sciences University of California,
1.1, 1.2 Ballots and Plurality Method
Socially desirable approximations for Dodgson’s voting rule Ioannis Caragiannis (University of Patras) Christos Kaklamanis (University of Patras) Nikos.
Math for Liberal Studies.  There are many more methods for determining the winner of an election with more than two candidates  We will only discuss.
Using computational hardness as a barrier against manipulation Vincent Conitzer
Using computational hardness as a barrier against manipulation Vincent Conitzer
Edith Elkind Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Piotr Faliszewski AGH Univeristy of Science and Technology, Poland Arkadii Slinko University of.
The Distortion of Cardinal Preferences in Voting Ariel D. Procaccia and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein.
Motivation: Condorcet Cycles Let people 1, 2 and 3 have to make a decision between options A, B, and C. Suppose they decide that majority voting is a good.
Preference elicitation Vincent Conitzer
CPS Voting and social choice
Social choice theory = preference aggregation = voting assuming agents tell the truth about their preferences Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science.
Lecture 7 Negotiating Strategy 1.Axiomatic (Nash) Bargaining 2.Connection to Alternating Offers 3.Voting, Stability and Group Decisions.
CRITERIA FOR A FAIR ELECTION
Social Choice Theory By Shiyan Li. History The theory of social choice and voting has had a long history in the social sciences, dating back to early.
Social Choice Theory By Shiyan Li. History The theory of social choice and voting has had a long history in the social sciences, dating back to early.
Common Voting Rules as Maximum Likelihood Estimators Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science Department.
Complexity of unweighted coalitional manipulation under some common voting rules Lirong XiaVincent Conitzer COMSOC08, Sep. 3-5, 2008 TexPoint fonts used.
Automated Design of Voting Rules by Learning From Examples Ariel D. Procaccia, Aviv Zohar, Jeffrey S. Rosenschein.
Preference Functions That Score Rankings and Maximum Likelihood Estimation Vincent Conitzer Matthew Rognlie Lirong Xia Duke University Thanks (at least)
Social choice theory = preference aggregation = truthful voting Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science Department Carnegie Mellon University.
Social choice (voting) Vincent Conitzer > > > >
Section 1.1, Slide 1 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 11.2, Slide 1 11 Voting Using Mathematics to Make Choices.
CPS Voting and social choice Vincent Conitzer
Alex Tabarrok. Individual Rankings (Inputs) BDA CCC ABD DAB Voting System (Aggregation Mechanism) Election Outcome (Global Ranking) B D A C.
Elections and Strategic Voting: Condorcet and Borda E. Maskin Harvard University.
Chapter 10: The Manipulability of Voting Systems Lesson Plan An Introduction to Manipulability Majority Rule and Condorcet’s Method The Manipulability.
Chapter 15 Section 1 - Slide 1 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. AND.
Great Theoretical Ideas in Computer Science.
By: Eric Zhang.  Indivisible items from multiple categories are allocated to agents without monetary transfer  Example – How paper presentations are.
Empirical Aspects of Plurality Elections David R. M. Thompson, Omer Lev, Kevin Leyton-Brown & Jeffrey S. Rosenschein COMSOC 2012 Kraków, Poland.
How Should Presidents Be Elected? E. Maskin Institute for Advanced Study.
The Mathematics of Voting Chapter 1. Preference Ballot A Ballot in which the voters are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference. 1. Brownies.
Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc. Section 15.2 Flaws of Voting.
Chapter 9: Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Lesson Plan Voting and Social Choice Majority Rule and Condorcet’s Method Other Voting Systems for Three.
11/24/2008CS Common Voting Rules as Maximum Likelihood Estimators - Matthew Kay 1 Common Voting Rules as Maximum Likelihood Estimators Vincent Conitzer,
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
Introduction to Social Choice
Introduction to Social Choice
Social choice theory = preference aggregation = voting assuming agents tell the truth about their preferences Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science.
Applied Mechanism Design For Social Good
8.2 Voting Possibilities and Fairness Criteria
Algorithmic Analysis of Elections: Voting Rules and Manipulability (minicourse) Piotr Faliszewski AGH University Kraków, Poland.
Introduction If we assume
1.3 The Borda Count Method.
Manipulation Lirong Xia Fall, Manipulation Lirong Xia Fall, 2016.
Social Choice Theory [Election Theory]
Voting systems Chi-Kwong Li.
Voting and social choice
Introduction to Social Choice
CPS 173 Voting and social choice
CPS Voting and social choice
Presentation transcript:

Generalized Scoring Rules Paper by Lirong Xia and Vincent Conitzer Presentation by Yosef Treitman

Positional Scoring Rules There is a preference profile P, where each voter ranks the alternatives from favorite to least favorite. --Example: a>b>c, b>a>c, c>a>b --Non-example: 45% a, 35% b, 20% c; 50% b, 30% c, 20% a;

Positional scoring rules (continued) Assigns a score to each alternative based purely on the number of times the alternative is given each position. The rule can be thought of as a vector r. Example: Baseball MVP: r = [ ]’ Borda: [m-1, m-2, … 3, 2, 1, 0]’

Example of Borda Rule Preference profile: a>b>c, b>a>c, c>a>b Alternative a gets 1 first-place vote and 7 second-place votes, for a score of 9. Alternative b gets a score of 5 and c gets a score of 10. Borda selects the alternative with the highest score. (In this case, option c.)

Condorcet Method Given a preference profile P of the same form as what we had before Compare the results of head-to-head competitions If one alternative “sweeps” the competitions, that alternative is the Condorcet winner Otherwise, there is no Condorcet winner Condorcet Consistent: always selects Condorcet winner.

Condorcet winner: examples Consider profile: a>b>c, b>a>c, c>a>b c is Condorcet winner For a>b>c, b>c>a, c>a>b, there is no Condorcet winner

Maximin method Compute the head to head competitions Assess each alternative by its worst head-to- head result Choose the alternative with the best worst- case result Condorcet consistent

Maximin examples Consider two profiles from before: For a>b>c, b>a>c, c>a>b, Winner: Alternative c Condorcet winner is alternative c vs. avs. bvs. cscore a4-2 b c222

Another example For a>b>c, b>c>a, c>a>b, Winner: Alternative c No Condorcet winner vs. avs. bvs. cscore a4-6 b-42 c6-2

What makes a good voting rule? Condorcet consistency Is Borda Condorcet consistent? No! P = a>b>c, b>a>c, c>a>b} Alternative c is Condorcet winner, alternative a is Borda winner No positional scoring rule works!

Isn’t this “backwards thinking?” In mathematics, results follow axioms. We can have a preconceived target to describe.

Generalized scoring rules Given same form of preference profile P Function f that assigns a score to each alternative for each voter The winner is chosen as a function of the order of the summed scores for each alternative. {Winner = g(Order(f(P)))} Borda is a GSR, as are all positional scoring rules.

g and f need not be so intuitive For maximin, let f map each vote to an m 2 dimensional vector. For voter n, F x (V n ) = 1 if a i > a j, -1 if a i < a j, 0 otherwise, where i = ceiling(x/m); j = x mod m. Depends on order alone Example: a>b>c, b>c>a, c>a>b

More axiomatic properties Anonymity, (achieved for generalized scoring rules) Finite Local Consistency: -- Not as strict as consistency -- Set of all possible profiles can be partitioned into finitely many consistent parts -- All consistent methods satisfy finite local consistency

Finite Local Consistency Example: Borda & other positional scoring rules maximin Example: 2 nd -most 1 st -place votes --Partition: a loses to b, a loses to c, etc. Non-example: Dodgson’s rule Finite Local Consistency implies homogeneity

Inhomogeneity of Dodgson’s rule DBCDAAD CCABBDA AABCCBB BDDADCC

But what if we triple the number of Voters? All GSR’s satisfy anonymity and FLC, and vice versa. [Xia and Conitzer, 2009.] DBCDAAD CCABBDA AABCCBB BDDADCC

Generality of GSR’s General enough to include positional scoring rules, maximin, STV, and many of the other rules we’ve studied Not too general, as they satisfy the axioms of anonymity and finite local consistency

Advantages of using GSR’s There are known results applying manipulability to GSR’s (Same rule of applies) Mathematically equivalent to using hyperplane rules Can be used as a compromise between Borda rule and Condorcet rules

More advantages of GSR’s No Condorcet rule is consistent, but they can be finitely locally consistent It allows consistency among preference profiles that share a given characteristic Can be applied to machine learning

Questions for discussion Are GSR’s too general? What’s the weirdest rule that is a GSR? Are they not general enough? Are there useful rules that are not GSR’s?