Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Scoring Rules in Voting
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores abductive and contrastive explanations for scoring rules in voting systems.
- Scoring rules are methods used to determine the winner of an election based on voters' preferences.
- Abductive explanations aim to provide the most plausible explanation for an observed outcome.
- Contrastive explanations compare the observed outcome to a counterfactual scenario to highlight the key differences.
Plain English Explanation
In a voting system, there are different ways to determine the winner of an election based on how voters rank the candidates. These methods are called scoring rules. The authors of this paper looked at two types of explanations for why a particular scoring rule led to a certain election outcome:
-
Abductive Explanations: These try to find the most plausible reason for why the observed outcome occurred. For example, if Candidate A won, the abductive explanation would try to identify the key factors that likely led to this result.
-
Contrastive Explanations: These compare the actual outcome to a hypothetical scenario where a different candidate won. The goal is to highlight the crucial differences between the two outcomes and what would have had to change for the other candidate to have won instead.
The researchers applied these two types of explanations to several common scoring rules used in voting, such as Plurality and Borda Count. This allowed them to better understand why certain scoring rules might lead to particular election outcomes and what factors influence those outcomes.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a framework for generating abductive and contrastive explanations for scoring rules in voting systems. For the abductive explanations, the authors use a model-based approach to identify the most plausible set of voter preferences that could have led to the observed election outcome.
To generate contrastive explanations, the researchers develop an algorithm that finds the smallest changes to voter preferences that would have resulted in a different election winner. This allows them to pinpoint the key factors that distinguished the actual outcome from the counterfactual scenario.
The authors apply their framework to four common scoring rules: Plurality, Borda Count, Approval Voting, and Veto. Through these case studies, they demonstrate how abductive and contrastive explanations can provide valuable insights into the strengths, weaknesses, and biases of different voting methods.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a strong case for the importance of explanations in the context of voting systems. Abductive and contrastive explanations can help election officials, policymakers, and the public better understand the factors influencing election outcomes. This is particularly relevant given the ongoing debates around the fairness and transparency of various voting methods.
However, the authors acknowledge that their framework relies on certain assumptions, such as the availability of complete information about voter preferences. In real-world elections, this information may be incomplete or uncertain, which could limit the applicability of the proposed techniques.
Additionally, the paper focuses on single-winner elections, but many real-world elections involve multiple winners (e.g., legislative bodies). Extending the framework to address multi-winner scenarios could be an area for future research.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel approach to analyzing and explaining the outcomes of voting systems using abductive and contrastive explanations. By shedding light on the factors that influence election results, the proposed framework has the potential to enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of the democratic process. While the methodology has some limitations, the insights gained from this research could inform the design and implementation of voting systems that are more aligned with the preferences and values of the electorate.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Scoring Rules in Voting
Cl'ement Contet, Umberto Grandi, J'er^ome Mengin
We view voting rules as classifiers that assign a winner (a class) to a profile of voters' preferences (an instance). We propose to apply techniques from formal explainability, most notably abductive and contrastive explanations, to identify minimal subsets of a preference profile that either imply the current winner or explain why a different candidate was not elected. Formal explanations turn out to have strong connections with classical problems studied in computational social choice such as bribery, possible and necessary winner identification, and preference learning. We design algorithms for computing abductive and contrastive explanations for scoring rules. For the Borda rule, we find a lower bound on the size of the smallest abductive explanations, and we conduct simulations to identify correlations between properties of preference profiles and the size of their smallest abductive explanations.
Read more8/27/2024
0
DeepVoting: Learning Voting Rules with Tailored Embeddings
Leonardo Matone, Ben Abramowitz, Nicholas Mattei, Avinash Balakrishnan
Aggregating the preferences of multiple agents into a collective decision is a common step in many important problems across areas of computer science including information retrieval, reinforcement learning, and recommender systems. As Social Choice Theory has shown, the problem of designing algorithms for aggregation rules with specific properties (axioms) can be difficult, or provably impossible in some cases. Instead of designing algorithms by hand, one can learn aggregation rules, particularly voting rules, from data. However, the prior work in this area has required extremely large models, or been limited by the choice of preference representation, i.e., embedding. We recast the problem of designing a good voting rule into one of learning probabilistic versions of voting rules that output distributions over a set of candidates. Specifically, we use neural networks to learn probabilistic social choice functions from the literature. We show that embeddings of preference profiles derived from the social choice literature allows us to learn existing voting rules more efficiently and scale to larger populations of voters more easily than other work if the embedding is tailored to the learning objective. Moreover, we show that rules learned using embeddings can be tweaked to create novel voting rules with improved axiomatic properties. Namely, we show that existing voting rules require only minor modification to combat a probabilistic version of the No Show Paradox.
Read more8/27/2024
🤔
0
Selecting the Most Conflicting Pair of Candidates
Th'eo Delemazure, {L}ukasz Janeczko, Andrzej Kaczmarczyk, Stanis{l}aw Szufa
We study committee elections from a perspective of finding the most conflicting candidates, that is, candidates that imply the largest amount of conflict, as per voter preferences. By proposing basic axioms to capture this objective, we show that none of the prominent multiwinner voting rules meet them. Consequently, we design committee voting rules compliant with our desiderata, introducing conflictual voting rules. A subsequent deepened analysis sheds more light on how they operate. Our investigation identifies various aspects of conflict, for which we come up with relevant axioms and quantitative measures, which may be of independent interest. We support our theoretical study with experiments on both real-life and synthetic data.
Read more5/10/2024
❗
0
Learning to Manipulate under Limited Information
Wesley H. Holliday, Alexander Kristoffersen, Eric Pacuit
By classic results in social choice theory, any reasonable preferential voting method sometimes gives individuals an incentive to report an insincere preference. The extent to which different voting methods are more or less resistant to such strategic manipulation has become a key consideration for comparing voting methods. Here we measure resistance to manipulation by whether neural networks of varying sizes can learn to profitably manipulate a given voting method in expectation, given different types of limited information about how other voters will vote. We trained over 70,000 neural networks of 26 sizes to manipulate against 8 different voting methods, under 6 types of limited information, in committee-sized elections with 5-21 voters and 3-6 candidates. We find that some voting methods, such as Borda, are highly manipulable by networks with limited information, while others, such as Instant Runoff, are not, despite being quite profitably manipulated by an ideal manipulator with full information. For the two probability models for elections that we use, the overall least manipulable of the 8 methods we study are Condorcet methods, namely Minimax and Split Cycle.
Read more4/17/2024