Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Metric distortion Under Probabilistic Voting

Mohak Goyal, Sahasrajit Sarmasarkar

TL;DR

This paper extends metric distortion to probabilistic voting, integrating randomness in voter rankings via the Plackett-Luce framework and axiomatizing admissible marginal distributions. It develops a general Dist^{(g)} framework with key constants ${\hat g}_{\textsc{mid}}$ and ${\hat g}_{\textsc{out}}$, and analyzes how Plurality, Copeland, RandomDictator, and Borda perform under this stochastic setting, deriving orderwise tight bounds. Notably, under PL with strength $s_{i,j}=d(i,j)^{-\theta}$, Copeland achieves constant distortion, RandomDictator can scale as $\Theta(m^{1/\theta})$, and Borda exhibits a phase transition with distortion $\Theta(m^{\max(1-2/\theta,0)})$, depending on the randomness parameter $\theta$. These results reconcile metric distortion with intuitive expectations about popular voting rules in realistic, noisy voting environments and motivate randomness-aware design of aggregation rules for spatial voting contexts.

Abstract

Metric distortion in social choice is a framework for evaluating how well voting rules minimize social cost when both voters and candidates exist in a shared metric space, with a voter's cost defined by their distance to a candidate. Voters submit rankings, and the rule aggregates these rankings to determine a winner. We extend this framework to incorporate probabilistic voting, recognizing that real-world voters exhibit randomness in how they vote. Our extension includes various probability functions, notably the widely studied Plackett-Luce (PL) model. We show that the distortion results under probabilistic voting better correspond with conventional intuitions regarding popular voting rules such as \textsc{Plurality}, \textsc{Copeland}, \textsc{Random Dictator} and \textsc{Borda} than those under deterministic voting. For example, in the PL model with candidate strength inversely proportional to the square of their metric distance from a voter, we show that \textsc{Copeland}'s distortion is at most 2, whereas that of \textsc{RandomDictator} is $Ω(\sqrt{m})$ in large elections (i.e., number of voters $n \rightarrow \infty$), where $m$ is the number of candidates. This contrasts sharply with the classical model, where \textsc{RandomDictator} beats \textsc{Copeland} with a distortion of 3 versus 5. In the PL model where the candidate strength is inversely proportional to the distance raised to power $θ$, the distortion under \textsc{Borda} is $Θ(m^{1-2/θ})$ when $θ>2$ and $Θ(1)$ otherwise. This generalizes the classical deterministic voting model where the distortion of \textsc{Borda} is $2m-1$. The proof uses a novel variant of asymptotic duality where we choose the Lagrange multiplier via asymptotically maximizing the derivative of the objective function. Overall, our work opens a new frontier for analyzing voting rules.

Metric distortion Under Probabilistic Voting

TL;DR

This paper extends metric distortion to probabilistic voting, integrating randomness in voter rankings via the Plackett-Luce framework and axiomatizing admissible marginal distributions. It develops a general Dist^{(g)} framework with key constants and , and analyzes how Plurality, Copeland, RandomDictator, and Borda perform under this stochastic setting, deriving orderwise tight bounds. Notably, under PL with strength , Copeland achieves constant distortion, RandomDictator can scale as , and Borda exhibits a phase transition with distortion , depending on the randomness parameter . These results reconcile metric distortion with intuitive expectations about popular voting rules in realistic, noisy voting environments and motivate randomness-aware design of aggregation rules for spatial voting contexts.

Abstract

Metric distortion in social choice is a framework for evaluating how well voting rules minimize social cost when both voters and candidates exist in a shared metric space, with a voter's cost defined by their distance to a candidate. Voters submit rankings, and the rule aggregates these rankings to determine a winner. We extend this framework to incorporate probabilistic voting, recognizing that real-world voters exhibit randomness in how they vote. Our extension includes various probability functions, notably the widely studied Plackett-Luce (PL) model. We show that the distortion results under probabilistic voting better correspond with conventional intuitions regarding popular voting rules such as \textsc{Plurality}, \textsc{Copeland}, \textsc{Random Dictator} and \textsc{Borda} than those under deterministic voting. For example, in the PL model with candidate strength inversely proportional to the square of their metric distance from a voter, we show that \textsc{Copeland}'s distortion is at most 2, whereas that of \textsc{RandomDictator} is in large elections (i.e., number of voters ), where is the number of candidates. This contrasts sharply with the classical model, where \textsc{RandomDictator} beats \textsc{Copeland} with a distortion of 3 versus 5. In the PL model where the candidate strength is inversely proportional to the distance raised to power , the distortion under \textsc{Borda} is when and otherwise. This generalizes the classical deterministic voting model where the distortion of \textsc{Borda} is . The proof uses a novel variant of asymptotic duality where we choose the Lagrange multiplier via asymptotically maximizing the derivative of the objective function. Overall, our work opens a new frontier for analyzing voting rules.
Paper Structure (28 sections, 15 theorems, 97 equations, 2 figures, 3 tables)

This paper contains 28 sections, 15 theorems, 97 equations, 2 figures, 3 tables.

Key Result

Lemma 1

$\frac{g_{\textsc{mid}}(x)}{x}$ and $\frac{g_{\textsc{out}}(x)}{x}$ have unique local maxima in $(0,1)$ and $(0,\infty)$ respectively.

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: A 1-D Euclidean example of voting probabilities. There are two candidates, positioned at 0 and 1. The left figure shows the voter positioned between 0 and 1, while the right figure shows the case where the voter is to the left of 0. As the distance increases, both candidates look similar to the voter in the probabilistic model but not in deterministic voting. The scenario where the voter is positioned to the right of 1 is symmetric.
  • Figure 2: The distortion bounds on voting rules, varying with the randomness parameter of the PL model, in the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$. Both axes are on the log scale. We plot the upper bound for Copeland (Theorem \ref{['theorem:Copeland_distrotion_m']}), the lower bound for RandomDictator (Theorem \ref{['theorem:RD_distortion_lower_bound']}), and the upper bound for Plurality (Theorem \ref{['theorem:thm_plurality_distortion_m']}).

Theorems & Definitions (47)

  • Definition 1: Voting Rule
  • Definition 2: RandomDictator
  • Definition 3: Plurality
  • Definition 4: Copeland
  • Definition 5: Borda Rule and Borda score
  • Definition 6: $\lambda$-weighted uncovered set and WeightedUncovered Rule munagala2019improved
  • Definition 7: Metric Distortionanshelevich2015approximating
  • Example 1: Mallows model fails Axioms \ref{['axiom:ioc']} and \ref{['axiom:monotonicity']}.
  • Definition 8: Plackett-Luce Model luce2005individualplackett1975analysis
  • Definition 9: Function class for pairwise order probability
  • ...and 37 more