Constant-Factor Distortion Mechanisms for k-Committee Election
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the k-committee election problem, we wish to aggregate the preferences of n agents over a set of alternatives and select a committee of k alternatives that minimizes the cost incurred by the agents. While we typically assume that agent preferences are captured by a cardinal utility function, in many contexts we only have access to ordinal information, namely the agents' rankings over the outcomes. As preference rankings are not as expressive as cardinal utilities, a loss of efficiency is inevitable, and is quantified by the notion of distortion. We study the problem of electing a k-committee that minimizes the sum of the \ell-largest costs incurred by the agents, when agents and candidates are embedded in a metric space. This problem is called the \ell-centrum problem and captures both the utilitarian and egalitarian objectives. When k >= 2, it is not possible to compute a bounded-distortion committee using purely ordinal information. We develop the first algorithms (that we call mechanisms) for the \ell-centrum problem (when k >= 2), which achieve O(1)-distortion while eliciting only a very limited amount of cardinal information via value queries. We obtain two types of query-complexity guarantees: O(log k log n) queries per agent, and O(k^2 log^2 n) queries in total (while achieving O(1)-distortion in both cases). En route, we give a simple adaptive-sampling algorithm for the \ell-centrum k-clustering problem.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".