Optimal social choice functions: A utilitarian view

We adopt a utilitarian perspective on social choice, assuming that agents have (possibly latent) utility functions over some space of alternatives. For many reasons one might consider mechanisms, or social choice functions, that only have access to the ordinal rankings of alternatives by the individual agents rather than their utility functions. In this context, one possible objective for a social choice function is the maximization of (expected) social welfare relative to the information contained in these rankings. We study such optimal social choice functions under three different models, and underscore the important role played by scoring functions. In our worst-case model, no assumptions are made about the underlying distribution and we analyze the worst-case distortion-or degree to which the selected alternative does not maximize social welfare-of optimal (randomized) social choice functions. In our average-case model, we derive optimal functions under neutral (or impartial culture) probabilistic models. Finally, a very general learning-theoretic model allows for the computation of optimal social choice functions (i.e., ones that maximize expected social welfare) under arbitrary, sampleable distributions. In the latter case, we provide both algorithms and sample complexity results for the class of scoring functions, and further validate the approach empirically.

[1]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Robust Approximation and Incremental Elicitation in Voting Protocols , 2011, IJCAI.

[2]  C. Hillinger,et al.  The Case for Utilitarian Voting , 2005 .

[3]  J. Harsanyi Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility , 1955 .

[4]  Robert F. Bordley,et al.  A Pragmatic Method for Evaluating Election Schemes through Simulation , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Meir Kalech,et al.  Practical voting rules with partial information , 2010, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[6]  H. Warren Lower bounds for approximation by nonlinear manifolds , 1968 .

[7]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Assessing regret-based preference elicitation with the UTPREF recommendation system , 2010, EC '10.

[8]  Edith Hemaspaandra,et al.  Dichotomy for voting systems , 2005, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[9]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  AI's War on Manipulation: Are We Winning? , 2010, AI Mag..

[10]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  On distance rationalizability of some voting rules , 2009, TARK '09.

[11]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  The learnability of voting rules , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Kenneth Y. Goldberg,et al.  Eigentaste: A Constant Time Collaborative Filtering Algorithm , 2001, Information Retrieval.

[13]  N. Nisan Introduction to Mechanism Design (for Computer Scientists) , 2007 .

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

[15]  Yaron Azrieli,et al.  Pareto Efficiency and Weighted Majority Rules , 2014 .

[16]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[17]  H. Young Social Choice Scoring Functions , 1975 .

[18]  Marek Karpinski,et al.  On Some Tighter Inapproximability Results (Extended Abstract) , 1999, ICALP.

[19]  S. Merrill A Comparison of Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems , 1984 .

[20]  Miguel A. Ballester,et al.  On the Justice of Decision Rules , 2011 .

[21]  H. Young Condorcet's Theory of Voting , 1988, American Political Science Review.

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

[23]  N. Alon Tools from higher algebra , 1996 .

[24]  Arkadii M. Slinko,et al.  How large should a coalition be to manipulate an election? , 2004, Math. Soc. Sci..

[25]  M. Trick,et al.  Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election , 1989 .

[26]  P. Berman,et al.  On Some Tighter Inapproximability Results , 1998, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[27]  Marcus Pivato,et al.  Condorcet meets Bentham , 2015 .

[28]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Generalized scoring rules and the frequency of coalitional manipulability , 2008, EC '08.

[29]  Peter L. Bartlett,et al.  Neural Network Learning - Theoretical Foundations , 1999 .

[30]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles , 2003, Soc. Choice Welf..

[31]  A. A. J. Marley,et al.  Behavioral Social Choice - Probabilistic Models, Statistical Inference, and Applications , 2006 .

[32]  Peter L. Bartlett,et al.  Learning in Neural Networks: Theoretical Foundations , 1999 .

[33]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Exact analysis of Dodgson elections: Lewis Carroll's 1876 voting system is complete for parallel access to NP , 1997, JACM.

[34]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[35]  Arunava Sen,et al.  Ordinally Bayesian incentive compatible voting rules , 2004 .

[36]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  The unavailable candidate model: a decision-theoretic view of social choice , 2010, EC '10.