MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283797980 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20443

Worst-Case Voting When the Stakes Are High

2022· article· en· W4283797980 on OpenAlexaff
Anson Kahng, Gregory Kehne

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistortion (music)Multiplicative functionSocial choice theoryBounding overwatchVotingSocial welfare functionMetric (unit)Function (biology)Class (philosophy)Mathematical economicsRange (aeronautics)Anti-plurality votingOutcome (game theory)Social WelfareWelfareComputer scienceMathematicsCardinal voting systemsEconomicsArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the additive distortion of social choice functions in the implicit utilitarian model, and argue that it is a more appropriate metric than multiplicative distortion when an alternative that confers significant social welfare may exist (i.e., when the stakes are high). We define a randomized analog of positional scoring rules, and present a rule which is asymptotically optimal within this class as the number of alternatives increases. We then show that the instance-optimal social choice function can be efficiently computed. Next, we take a beyond-worst-case view, bounding the additive distortion of prominent voting rules as a function of the best welfare attainable in an instance. Lastly, we evaluate the additive distortion of a range of rules on real-world election data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.120 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207