Group choice with lexicographic individual orderings

The theory of social choice is concerned with the problem of aggregating the preferences of several persons into a single preference order. The problem has the same structure as that of aggregating the preference orders of a single person with regard to several aspects of alternatives into a single preference order on the set of alternatives. For this reason, the theory of social choice comes logically not under the topic of collective action (as one might suppose) but rather under the topic of multi-objective decisions. This is so because the several participants in a situation defined as a problem of social choice do not really select courses of action among several available ones when they present their preference orders on a set of alternatives. Therefore they are not ‘actors’, as actors are defined in the theory of decision. To be sure, there are situations where voters do choose strategies, that is, choose among different preference orders to present, which may or may not represent their true preferences but which they believe will be more likely to lead to a more desirable aggregated order. These situations can be considered as n-person decision problems, and we will examine them in the context of non-cooperative n-person games (see Chapter 14. At this time, however, we will suppose that each voter acts ‘sincerely’, that is, presents his ‘actual’ preference order. The decision is now up to some agency, which must combine all these submitted preference orders into a ‘social’ preference order.KeywordsSocial ChoicePreference OrderPareto OptimalitySocial Welfare FunctionSimple MajorityThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

In this paper, we provide axiomatic foundations for social choice rules on a domain of convex and comprehensive social choice problems when agents have cardinal utility functions. We translate the axioms of three well known approaches in bargaining theory (Nash 1950; Kalai and Smorodinsky 1975; Kalai 1977) to the domain of social choice problems and provide an impossibility result for each. We then introduce the concept of a reference function which, for each social choice set, selects a point from which relative gains are measured. By restricting the invariance and comparison axioms so that they only apply to sets with the same reference point, we obtain characterizations of social choice rules that are natural analogues of the bargaining theory solutions.

Crowdsourcing is an important tool, e.g., in computational linguistics and computer vision, to efficiently label large amounts of data using nonexpert annotators. The individual annotations collected need to be aggregated into a single collective annotation. The hope is that the quality of this collective annotation will be comparable to that of a traditionally sourced expert annotation. In practice, most scientists working with crowdsourcing methods use simple majority voting to aggregate their data, although some have also used probabilistic models and treated aggregation as a problem of maximum likelihood estimation. The observation that the aggregation step in a collective annotation exercise may be considered a problem of social choice has only been made very recently. Following up on this observation, we show that the axiomatic method, as practiced in social choice theory, can make a contribution to this important domain and we develop an axiomatic framework for collective annotation, focusing amongst other things on the notion of an annotator's bias. We complement our theoretical study with a discussion of a crowdsourcing experiment using data from dialogue modelling in computational linguistics.

One of the most exciting areas in economic theory is the study of incentives. Within this rubric a broad range of problems are currently being addressed. They range from the problems of social choice, to the economics of planning, to the character of labor contracts. The central theme of the research agenda concerns how the incentive structure affects the quality of information agents are willing to communicate. The principal question concerns how truthful revelation of information can be induced.1 Such questions are important whenever agents can profit from distorting information. The problem thus arises in all sorts of guises in economics. The purpose of this essay is to illustrate this point by focusing on three distinct areas, social choice, public finance, and economic planning.

There are alternative ways of decomposing a given fuzzy weak preference relation into its antisymmetric and symmetric components. In this paper I have provided support to one among these alternative specifications. It is shown that on this specification the fuzzy analogue of the General Possibility Theorem is valid even when the transitivity restrictions on the individual and the social preference relations are relatively weak. In the special case where the individual preference relations are exact but the social preference relation is permitted to be fuzzy it is possible to distinguish between different degrees of power of the dictator. This power increases with the strength of the transitivity requirement.

Collective decision making is the process of mapping the individual views of several individual agents into a joint decision. The need for collective decision making mechanisms is abundant, not just in the realm of politics, but also for a wide range of scientific and technological applications. These include, for instance, logistics, grid computing, and recommender systems. The alternatives to be decided upon often have a combinatorial structure: an alternative is characterised by a tuple of variables, each ranging over a finite domain. Classical approaches to collective decision making, developed in social choice theory, do not take the computational limitations induced by the combinatorial nature of the problem into account. For instance, if we are asked to elect a committee consisting of k representatives, choosing from a pool of n candidates, then we are in fact faced with a social choice problem with $(^n_k)$ alternatives. Asking each voter for their full preferences over these $(^n_k)$ alternatives may not be feasible in practice. Similarly, if we have to choose between accepting or rejecting each of n different propositions, then we are dealing with a social choice problem with 2 n possible outcomes. In this talk I will report on a number of recent developments in the area of collective decision making in combinatorial domains. This includes the study of languages for the compact representation of preferences [2,4], the design of voting rules for multi-issue elections [1], and the analysis of the computational complexity of decision problems arising in judgment aggregation [3].

Social choice problems with fixed sets of alternatives

This paper investigates the rationality of group decisions versus individual decisions under risk. We study two group decision rules, majority and unanimity, in stochastic dominance and Allais paradox tasks. We distinguish communication effects (the effects of group discussions and interactions) from aggregation effects (mere impact of the voting procedure), which makes it possible to better understand the complex dynamics of group decision making. In an experiment, both effects occurred for intellective tasks whereas there were only aggregation effects in judgmental tasks. Communication effects always led to more rational choices; aggregation effects did so sometimes but not always. Groups violated stochastic dominance less often than individuals did, which was due to both aggregation and communication effects. In the Allais paradox tasks, there were almost no communication effects, and aggregation effects made groups deviate more from expected utility than individuals.

This paper seeks to prove that under a large class of group decision rules some sincere voting situations will be unstable because of strategic manipulation by single individuals. The concept of stability used is weaker than the stability concepts figuring in many earlier contributions in this area, insofar as under the concept used here any individual, while disrupting a given voting situation, considers the possibility of retaliation by other individuals. DUMMETT AND FARQUHARSON [2], Murakami [7], Farquharson [3], Sen [14], Gibbard [4], Satterthwaite [13], and Pattanaik [10, 11, and 12] have discussed various aspects of the problem of stability in voting. The general conclusion which emerges from these writings seems to be that stability of all possible sincere voting situations (which implies the absence of strategic distortion of preferences by voters) is an extremely rare feature of democratic group decision procedures. However, the notion of stability or equilibrium underlying many of these contributions is a simple one and does not take into account several phenomena usually associated with strategic voting such as the possibility of counter-coalitions when a coalition (of one or more individuals) threatens to disrupt a voting situation. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it introduces a less demanding notion of stability which takes into account the possibility of formation of countercoalitions when an individual seeks to influence the outcome in his own favor by strategic manipulations in voting. Secondly, using this very weak notion of stability, it is shown that, while under the changed definition the possibility of having unstable sincere voting situations because of strategic voting by single individuals is somewhat reduced, invulnerability of all possible sincere voting situations to voting maneuvres of single individuals still remains a very rare property among democratic group decision rules based on pairwise comparisons. We lay down the basic notation and some preliminary definitions in Section 1. In Section 2 we introduce a notion of stability taking into account the possibility of counter-coalitions. Using this very weak definition of stability, in Section 3 we show that under most democratic group decision rules based on pairwise comparisons, there is the danger of having unstable sincere voting situations owing to strategic manipulations by single individuals. We conclude in Section 4.

The assignment problem, a well-known variant of which is the problem of optimal staff distribution, has formerly been treated as a problem of linear optimization starting with numerical evaluations of the assignments. In this paper the assignment problem is regarded as a problem of social choice, where preference orders are used as the sole initial information. A formal definition of an assignment function is given and various conditions for such functions are suggested. Some conditions are found to be incompatible. Several reasonable assignment functions are examined with respect to which conditions they fulfil. Finally, some problems, related to the assignment problem, are informally discussed.

We consider collective choice with agents possessing strictly monotone, strictly convex and continuous preferences over a compact and convex constraint set contained in +k . If it is non-empty the core will lie on the efficient boundary of the constraint set and any policy not in the core is beaten by some policy on the efficient boundary. It is possible to translate the collective choice problem on this efficient boundary to another social choice problem on a compact and convex subset of +c (c<k) with strictly convex and continuous preferences. In this setting the dimensionality results in Banks (1995) and Saari (1997) apply to the dimensionality of the boundary of the constraint set (which is lower than the dimensionality of the choice space by at least one). If the constraint set is not convex then the translated lower dimensional problem does not necessarily involve strict convexity of preferences but the dimensionality of the problem is still lower. Broadly, the results show that the homogeneity afforded by strict monotonicity of preferences and a compact constraint set makes generic core emptyness slightly less common. One example of the results is that if preferences are strictly monotone and convex on 2 then choice on a compact and convex constraint exhibits a version of the median voter theorem.

Biases in Group Decision Making

We consider a social choice problem where individual rationality is required. The status quo belongs to the outcome space, and the selected alternative must be weakly better than the status quo for everybody. If the mechanism designer has no knowledge of the alternatives, we obtain a negative result: any individually rational (IR) and strategy-proof (SP) mechanism can choose at most one alternative (besides the status quo), regardless of the preferences. To overcome this negative result, we consider a domain where the alternatives have a known structure, i.e., an agent is indifferent between the status quo and a subset of the outcomes. This set is exogenously given and public information. This assumption is natural if the social choice involves the participation of agents. For example, consider a group of people organizing a trip where participation is voluntary. We can assume each agent is indifferent between the trip plans in which she does not participate and the status quo (i.e., no trip). In this setting, we obtain more positive results: we develop a class of mechanisms called Approve and Choose mechanisms, which are IR and SP, and can choose multiple alternatives as well as the status quo.

Book Review: An Anatomy of Values: Problems of Personal and Social Choice

AINYONE CONCERNED to think clearly and well has to make at least two principle decisions. The first, and often most neglected, involves separating the from the trivial: making distinctions between things that we need to know now, from those that we might want to know at a later, less perilous time, from those that we really can do without now and forever. This is not necessarily easy as the advocates of pure science often remind us. Still, I suspect that the choice is not as difficult as it may seem, especially in a world of widening extremes between the winners and the losers, that is busily engaged in pulling the ecological rug out from under its own feet while developing more clever and more probable ways to incinerate itself. The second decision involves making distinctions within the category of important between the true, the less true, and the false, knowing all the while that reality is more complex than our ability to think about it. Moreover, the characteristics of relativity, randomness, indeterminacy, and incompleteness found in the physical/mathematical universe doubtless have analogs in the social world, which are compounded by problems of irony, values, ethics, and social choice. Moreover, disciplinary paradigms, research methods, and the institutional context of research and thought can seriously distort what we think to be true. The two decisions, of course, are related. The choice of what is depends to some extent on what is thought to be true and vice versa. In both decisions a healthy concern for good thought en-