Deliberation for Social Choice Brandon Fain*[1], Ashish Goel[2], - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

deliberation for social choice
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Deliberation for Social Choice Brandon Fain*[1], Ashish Goel[2], - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Deliberation for Social Choice Brandon Fain*[1], Ashish Goel[2], Kamesh Munagala[1] [1] Duke University [2] Stanford University Voting in Complex Spaces What if: The space of outcomes is large? No preference structure is known


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Deliberation for Social Choice

Brandon Fain*[1], Ashish Goel[2], Kamesh Munagala[1] [1] Duke University [2] Stanford University

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Voting in Complex Spaces

  • What if:
  • The space of
  • utcomes is

large?

  • No preference

structure is known a priori?

  • We can always run

plurality vote, but…

slide-3
SLIDE 3

The Failure of Plurality

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Goals

  • Desiderata:
  • A. The algorithm (mechanism) designer does not

need to understand the decision space.

  • B. We can prove guarantees on the quality of
  • utcomes under analytical models.
  • C. In particular, we should beat random

dictatorship.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Sequential Deliberation

  • N := set of agents. Initialize o0 <— Favorite
  • utcome of a random agent.
  • For rounds from t=1 to t=T:
  • ut ~ Uniform(N) and vt ~ Uniform(N)
  • ot <— Bargain({ut, vt}, ot-1)
  • Output oT.
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Median Graphs

Median Graph Not Median Graph

  • Trees
  • Hypercubes
  • Grids
  • Triangles
  • Disconnected

Has a Condorcet winner

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Results

  • 1. On a median graph, Nash bargaining between

agents u and v with bliss points pu and pv using disagreement outcome o finds the median of pu,pv,o.

  • 2. We can analytically compute bounds on

approximating the social cost minimizer by embedding onto the hypercube.

  • 3. All agents bargaining truthfully representing

their bliss point is a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium of the extensive form game defined by sequential bargaining.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Bounds

Welfare Approximation Random Dictatorship Random Deliberation Sequential Deliberation Upper Bound

2 1.316 1.208 Lower Bound 2 1.316 1.125

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Acknowledgements

  • Collaborators Kamesh Munagala (Duke

University) and Ashish Goel (Stanford University).

  • Supported by NSF grants CCF-1408784 and

IIS-1447554

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Thanks!

  • Questions?
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Deliberation

Red Yellow Blue Green Red (0, 1) (2, 1) (2, 1) (2, 1) Yellow (2, 1) (1, 2) (2, 1) (2, 1) Blue (2, 1) (2, 1) (2, 1) (2, 1) Green (2, 1) (2, 1) (2, 1) (1, 0) Red Yellow Blue Green

  • Dist. to

Alice 1 2 1

  • Dist. to

Bob 1 2 1

Alice Bob Disagreement alternative

Bargain({Alice,Bob}, Blue) = Green