Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userCommittee Selection with Attribute Level Preferences
100
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Vikas Kumar
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We consider the problem of committee selection from a fixed set of candidates where each candidate has multiple quantifiable attributes. To select the best possible committee, instead of voting for a candidate, a voter is allowed to approve the preferred attributes of a given candidate. Though attribute based preference is addressed in several contexts, committee selection problem with attribute approval of voters has not been attempted earlier. A committee formed on attribute preferences is more likely to be a better representative of the qualities desired by the voters and is less likely to be susceptible to collusion or manipulation. In this work, we provide a formal study of the different aspects of this problem and define properties of weak unanimity, strong unanimity, simple justified representations and compound justified representation, that are required to be satisfied by the selected committee. We show that none of the existing vote/approval aggregation rules satisfy these new properties for attribute aggregation. We describe a greedy approach for attribute aggregation that satisfies the first three properties, but not the fourth, i.e., compound justified representation, which we prove to be NP-complete. Furthermore, we prove that finding a committee with justified representation and the highest approval voting score is NP-complete.
rate research
Read More
In the committee selection problem, we are given $m$ candidates, and $n$ voters. Candidates can have different weights. A committee is a subset of candidates, and its weight is the sum of weights of its candidates. Each voter expresses an ordinal ranking over all possible committees. The only assumption we make on preferences is monotonicity: If $S subseteq S$ are two committees, then any voter weakly prefers $S$ to $S$. We study a general notion of group fairness via stability: A committee of given total weight $K$ is stable if no coalition of voters can deviate and choose a committee of proportional weight, so that all these voters strictly prefer the new committee to the existing one. Extending this notion to approximation, for parameter $c ge 1$, a committee $S$ of weight $K$ is said to be $c$-approximately stable if for any other committee $S$ of weight $K$, the fraction of voters that strictly prefer $S$ to $S$ is strictly less than $frac{c K}{K}$. When $c = 1$, this condition is equivalent to classical core stability. The question we ask is: Does a $c$-approximately stable committee of weight at most any given value $K$ always exist for constant $c$? It is relatively easy to show that there exist monotone preferences for which $c ge 2$. However, even for simple and widely studied preference structures, a non-trivial upper bound on $c$ has been elusive. In this paper, we show that $c = O(1)$ for all monotone preference structures. Our proof proceeds via showing an existence result for a randomized notion of stability, and iteratively rounding the resulting fractional solution.
In this paper, we study fairness in committee selection problems. We consider a general notion of fairness via stability: A committee is stable if no coalition of voters can deviate and choose a committee of proportional size, so that all these voters strictly prefer the new committee to the existing one. Our main contribution is to extend this definition to stability of a distribution (or lottery) over committees. We consider two canonical voter preference models: the Approval Set setting where each voter approves a set of candidates and prefers committees with larger intersection with this set; and the Ranking setting where each voter ranks committees based on how much she likes her favorite candidate in a committee. Our main result is to show that stable lotteries always exist for these canonical preference models. Interestingly, given preferences of voters over committees, the procedure for computing an approximately stable lottery is the same for both models and therefore extends to the setting where some voters have the former preference structure and others have the latter. Our existence proof uses the probabilistic method and a new large deviation inequality that may be of independent interest.
The design of optimal auctions is a problem of interest in economics, game theory and computer science. Despite decades of effort, strategyproof, revenue-maximizing auction designs are still not known outside of restricted settings. However, recent methods using deep learning have shown some success in approximating optimal auctions, recovering several known solutions and outperforming strong baselines when optimal auctions are not known. In addition to maximizing revenue, auction mechanisms may also seek to encourage socially desirable constraints such as allocation fairness or diversity. However, these philosophical notions neither have standardization nor do they have widely accepted formal definitions. In this paper, we propose PreferenceNet, an extension of existing neural-network-based auction mechanisms to encode constraints using (potentially human-provided) exemplars of desirable allocations. In addition, we introduce a new metric to evaluate an auction allocations adherence to such socially desirable constraints and demonstrate that our proposed method is competitive with current state-of-the-art neural-network based auction designs. We validate our approach through human subject research and show that we are able to effectively capture real human preferences. Our code is available at https://github.com/neeharperi/PreferenceNet
In the peer selection problem a group of agents must select a subset of themselves as winners for, e.g., peer-reviewed grants or prizes. Here, we take a Condorcet view of this aggregation problem, i.e., that there is a ground-truth ordering over the agents and we wish to select the best set of agents, subject to the noisy assessments of the peers. Given this model, some agents may be unreliable, while others might be self-interested, attempting to influence the outcome in their favour. In this paper we extend PeerNomination, the most accurate peer reviewing algorithm to date, into WeightedPeerNomination, which is able to handle noisy and inaccurate agents. To do this, we explicitly formulate assessors reliability weights in a way that does not violate strategyproofness, and use this information to reweight their scores. We show analytically that a weighting scheme can improve the overall accuracy of the selection significantly. Finally, we implement several instances of reweighting methods and show empirically that our methods are robust in the face of noisy assessments.
In the multidimensional stable roommate problem, agents have to be allocated to rooms and have preferences over sets of potential roommates. We study the complexity of finding good allocations of agents to rooms under the assumption that agents have diversity preferences [Bredereck et al., 2019]: each agent belongs to one of the two types (e.g., juniors and seniors, artists and engineers), and agents preferences over rooms depend solely on the fraction of agents of their own type among their potential roommates. We consider various solution concepts for this setting, such as core and exchange stability, Pareto optimality and envy-freeness. On the negative side, we prove that envy-free, core stable or (strongly) exchange stable outcomes may fail to exist and that the associated decision problems are NP-complete. On the positive side, we show that these problems are in FPT with respect to the room size, which is not the case for the general stable roommate problem. Moreover, for the classic setting with rooms of size two, we present a linear-time algorithm that computes an outcome that is core and exchange stable as well as Pareto optimal. Many of our results for the stable roommate problem extend to the stable marriage problem.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
