Find out more about our session on Wednesday 21 January.

With a rapid growth in the deployment of AI tools for making critical decisions (or aiding humans in doing so), there is a growing demand to be able to explain to the stakeholders how these tools arrive at a decision. Consequently, voting is frequently used to make such decisions due to its inherent explainability. Recent work suggests that using randomized (as opposed to deterministic) voting rules can lead to significant efficiency gains measured via the distortion framework. However, rules that use intricate randomization can often become too complex to explain to the stakeholders; losing explainability can eliminate the key advantage of voting over black-box AI tools, which may outweigh the efficiency gains.We study the efficiency gains which can be unlocked by using voting rules that add a simple randomization step to a deterministic rule, thereby retaining explainability. We focus on two such families of rules, randomized positional scoring rules and random committee member rules, and show, theoretically and empirically, that they indeed achieve explainability and efficiency simultaneously to some extent.

Voting systems have a wide range of applications including recommender systems, web search, product design and elections. Limited by the lack of general-purpose analytical tools, it is difficult to hand-engineer desirable voting rules for each use case. For this reason, it is appealing to automatically discover voting rules geared towards each scenario. In this paper, we show that set-input neural network architectures such as Set Transformers, fully-connected graph networks and DeepSets are both theoretically and empirically well-suited for learning voting rules. In particular, we show that these network models can not only mimic a number of existing voting rules to compelling accuracy --- both position-based (such as Plurality and Borda) and comparison-based (such as Kemeny, Copeland and Maximin) --- but also discover near-optimal voting rules that maximize different social welfare functions. Furthermore, the learned voting rules generalize well to different voter utility distributions and election sizes unseen during training.

We initiate the work towards a comprehensive picture of the worst average-case satisfaction of voting axioms in semi-random models, to provide a finer and more realistic foundation for comparing voting rules. We adopt the semi-random model and formulation in [Xia 2020], where an adversary chooses arbitrarily correlated ``ground truth'' preferences for the agents, on top of which random noises are added. We focus on characterizing the semi-random satisfaction of two well-studied voting axioms: Condorcet criterion and participation. We prove that for any fixed number of alternatives, when the number of voters $n$ is sufficiently large, the semi-random satisfaction of the Condorcet criterion under a wide range of voting rules is $1$, $1-\exp(-\Theta(n))$, $\Theta(n^{-0.5})$,

In shift bribery, a briber seeks to promote his preferred candidate by paying voters to raise their ranking. Classical models of shift bribery assume voters act independently, overlooking the role of social influence. However, in reality, individuals are social beings and are often represented as part of a social network, where bribed voters may influence their neighbors, thereby amplifying the effect of persuasion. We study Shift bribery over Networks, where voters are modeled as nodes in a directed weighted graph, and arcs represent social influence between them. In this setting, bribery is not confined to directly targeted voters its effects can propagate through the network, influencing neighbors and amplifying persuasion. Given a budget and individual cost functions for shifting each voter's preference toward a designated candidate, the goal is to determine whether a shift strategy exists within budget that ensures the preferred candidate wins after both direct and network-propagated influence takes effect. We show that the problem is NP-Complete even with two candidates and unit costs, and W[2]-hard when parameterized by budget or maximum degree. On the positive side, we design polynomial-time algorithms for complete graphs under plurality and majority rules and path graphs for uniform edge weights, linear-time algorithms for transitive tournaments for two candidates, linear cost functions and uniform arc weights, and pseudo-polynomial algorithms for cluster graphs. We further prove the existence of fixed-parameter tractable algorithms with treewidth as parameter for two candidates, linear cost functions and uniform arc weights and pseudo-FPT with cluster vertex deletion number for two candidates and uniform arc weights. Together, these results give a detailed complexity landscape for shift bribery in social networks.

We study voting rules for participatory budgeting, where a group of voters collectively decides which projects should be funded using a common budget.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

With a rapid growth in the deployment of AI tools for making critical decisions (or aiding humans in doing so), there is a growing demand to be able to explain to the stakeholders how these tools arrive at a decision.

ML, preferences and rankings are commonly learned by fitting a probabilistic model to noisy preference data. The behavior of this learning process from the view of economic theory has previously been studied for the case where the data consists of rankings. In practice, it is more common to have only pairwise comparison data, and the formal properties of the associated learning problem are more challenging to analyze. We show that a large class of random utility models (including the Thurstone-Mosteller Model), when estimated using the MLE, satisfy a Pareto efficiency condition. These models also satisfy a strong monotonicity property, which implies that the learning process is responsive to input data. On the other hand, we show that these models fail certain other consistency conditions from social choice theory, and in particular do not always follow the majority opinion. Our results inform existing and future applications of random utility models for societal decision making.