We take an unorthodox view of voting by expanding the design space to include both the elicitation rule, whereby voters map their (cardinal) preferences to votes, and the aggregation rule, which transforms the reported votes into collective decisions. Intuitively, there is a tradeoff between the communication requirements of the elicitation rule (i.e., the number of bits of information that voters need to provide about their preferences) and the efficiency of the outcome of the aggregation rule, which we measure through distortion (i.e., how well the utilitarian social welfare of the outcome approximates the maximum social welfare in the worst case). Our results chart the Pareto frontier of the communication-distortion tradeoff.

Equalized odds is a statistical notion of fairness in machine learning that ensures that classification algorithms do not discriminate against protected groups. We extend equalized odds to the setting of cardinality-constrained fair classification, where we have a bounded amount of a resource to distribute. This setting coincides with classic fair division problems, which allows us to apply concepts from that literature in parallel to equalized odds. In particular, we consider the axioms of resource monotonicity, consistency, and population monotonicity, all three of which relate different allocation instances to prevent paradoxes. Using a geometric characterization of equalized odds, we examine the compatibility of equalized odds with these axioms. We empirically evaluate the cost of allocation rules that satisfy both equalized odds and axioms of fair division on a dataset of FICO credit scores.

We consider a collaborative PAC learning model, in which k players attempt to learn the same underlying concept. We ask how much more information is required to learn an accurate classifier for all players simultaneously. We refer to the ratio between the sample complexity of collaborative PAC learning and its non-collaborative (single-player) counterpart as the overhead.

We take an unorthodox view of voting by expanding the design space to include both the elicitation rule, whereby voters map their (cardinal) preferences to votes, and the aggregation rule, which transforms the reported votes into collective decisions. Intuitively, there is a tradeoff between the communication requirements of the elicitation rule (i.e., the number of bits of information that voters need to provide about their preferences) and the efficiency of the outcome of the aggregation rule, which we measure through distortion (i.e., how well the utilitarian social welfare of the outcome approximates the maximum social welfare in the worst case). Our results chart the Pareto frontier of the communication-distortion tradeoff.

Equalized odds is a statistical notion of fairness in machine learning that ensures that classification algorithms do not discriminate against protected groups. We extend equalized odds to the setting of cardinality-constrained fair classification, where we have a bounded amount of a resource to distribute. This setting coincides with classic fair division problems, which allows us to apply concepts from that literature in parallel to equalized odds. In particular, we consider the axioms of resource monotonicity, consistency, and population monotonicity, all three of which relate different allocation instances to prevent paradoxes. Using a geometric characterization of equalized odds, we examine the compatibility of equalized odds with these axioms. We empirically evaluate the cost of allocation rules that satisfy both equalized odds and axioms of fair division on a dataset of FICO credit scores.

We consider a collaborative PAC learning model, in which k players attempt to learn the same underlying concept. We ask how much more information is required to learn an accurate classifier for all players simultaneously. We refer to the ratio between the sample complexity of collaborative PAC learning and its non-collaborative (single-player) counterpart as the overhead.