Flexible level-1 consensus ensuring stable social choice: analysis and algorithms

Level-1 consensus is a recently-introduced property of a preference-profile. Intuitively, it means that there exists a preference relation which induces an ordering of all other preferences such that frequent preferences are those that are more similar to it. This is a desirable property, since it enhances the stability of social choice by guaranteeing that there exists a Condorcet winner and it is elected by all scoring rules. In this paper, we present an algorithm for checking whether a given preference profile exhibits level-1 consensus. We apply this algorithm to a large number of preference profiles, both real and randomly-generated, and find that level-1 consensus is very improbable. We support these empirical findings theoretically, by showing that, under the impartial culture assumption, the probability of level-1 consensus approaches zero when the number of individuals approaches infinity. Motivated by these observations, we show that the level-1 consensus property can be weakened while retaining its stability implications. We call this weaker property Flexible Consensus. We show, both empirically and theoretically, that it is considerably more probable than the original level-1 consensus. In particular, under the impartial culture assumption, the probability for Flexible Consensus converges to a positive number when the number of individuals approaches infinity.

[1]  James Bennett,et al.  The Netflix Prize , 2007 .

[2]  Shmuel Nitzan,et al.  Level r Consensus and Stable Social Choice , 2014 .

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

[4]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Effective sampling and learning for mallows models with pairwise-preference data , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[5]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Better Human Computation Through Principled Voting , 2013, AAAI.

[6]  C. L. Mallows NON-NULL RANKING MODELS. I , 1957 .

[7]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Single-peaked consistency and its complexity , 2008, ECAI.

[8]  Nikolay L. Poliakov Note on level r consensus , 2016, 1606.04816.

[9]  John G. Kemeny,et al.  Mathematical models in the social sciences , 1964 .

[10]  Martin Lackner,et al.  On the likelihood of single-peaked preferences , 2017, Soc. Choice Welf..

[11]  LuTyler,et al.  Effective sampling and learning for mallows models with pairwise-preference data , 2014 .

[12]  John G. Kemeny,et al.  Mathematical models in the social sciences , 1964 .

[13]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  A characterization of the single-crossing domain , 2013, Soc. Choice Welf..

[14]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Preference Restrictions in Computational Social Choice: Recent Progress , 2016, IJCAI.

[15]  William V. Gehrlein,et al.  The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox , 1981 .

[16]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  Top monotonicity: A common root for single peakedness, single crossing and the median voter result , 2011, Games Econ. Behav..

[17]  Padhraic Smyth,et al.  KDD Cup and workshop 2007 , 2007, SKDD.

[18]  Timothy M. Chan,et al.  Counting inversions, offline orthogonal range counting, and related problems , 2010, SODA '10.