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.

[1]  H. Moulin Choosing from a tournament , 1986 .

[2]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  The Distortion of Cardinal Preferences in Voting , 2006, CIA.

[3]  Yu Cheng,et al.  On the Distortion of Voting with Multiple Representative Candidates , 2017, AAAI.

[4]  Nicolas de Condorcet Essai Sur L'Application de L'Analyse a la Probabilite Des Decisions Rendues a la Pluralite Des Voix , 2009 .

[5]  Nikhil R. Devanur,et al.  A Duality-Based Unified Approach to Bayesian Mechanism Design , 2019, SIAM J. Comput..

[6]  A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result , 1973 .

[7]  M. Satterthwaite Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions , 1975 .

[8]  Amos Fiat,et al.  On Voting and Facility Location , 2015, EC.

[9]  Faruk Gul,et al.  Generalized Median Voter Schemes and Committees , 1993 .

[10]  G. Thompson,et al.  The Theory of Committees and Elections. , 1959 .

[11]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Incomplete Information and Communication in Voting , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[12]  Ariel D. Procaccia Can Approximation Circumvent Gibbard-Satterthwaite? , 2010, AAAI.

[13]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  An introduction to strategy-proof social choice functions , 2001, Soc. Choice Welf..

[14]  Yu Cheng,et al.  Of the People: Voting Is More Effective with Representative Candidates , 2017, EC.

[15]  T. Tideman,et al.  Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules , 1987 .

[16]  D. Black On the Rationale of Group Decision-making , 1948, Journal of Political Economy.

[17]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Optimal social choice functions: A utilitarian view , 2015, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Randomized Social Choice Functions under Metric Preferences , 2015, IJCAI.

[19]  Vijay V. Vazirani,et al.  Approximation Algorithms , 2001, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[20]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Handbook of Computational Social Choice , 2016 .

[21]  B. Grofman,et al.  A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models , 1999 .

[22]  H. Moulin On strategy-proofness and single peakedness , 1980 .

[23]  David Kempe,et al.  Communication, Distortion, and Randomness in Metric Voting , 2019, AAAI.

[24]  A. Downs An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy , 1957, Journal of Political Economy.

[25]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Metric Distortion of Social Choice Rules: Lower Bounds and Fairness Properties , 2016, EC.

[26]  Mark A. Schulze,et al.  A New Monotonic and Clone-Independent Single-Winner Election Method , 2003 .

[27]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Approximating Optimal Social Choice under Metric Preferences , 2015, AAAI.

[28]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Vote Until Two of You Agree: Mechanisms with Small Distortion and Sample Complexity , 2017, AAAI.

[29]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Improved Metric Distortion for Deterministic Social Choice Rules , 2019, EC.

[30]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Voting almost maximizes social welfare despite limited communication , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[31]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Blind, Greedy, and Random: Algorithms for Matching and Clustering Using Only Ordinal Information , 2016, AAAI.

[32]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Ordinal approximation in matching and social choice , 2016, SECO.