pptx

Condorcet Consistent
Bundling with Social Choice
Shreyas Sekar, Sujoy Sikdar, Lirong Xia
Optimal Bundle Selection… Journals in a Library
Algorithmica
Limited space
Software
𝑛
J
A
I
R
ECONOMETRICA
Many journals to choose from
…
π‘˜β‰ͺ𝑛
Users have preferences over the journals
Examples: Committees, TV channel packages, insurance policies, …
β€’ Linear orders on the journals:
Software
Optimal Bundle Selection: Preferences
≻
≻
≻⋯
Motivating Question
How to select bundles of size k to satisfy majority of users,
who have preferences over individual items?
Condorcet Criterion
Copeland
Maximin/Minimax
This Work
Ranked Pairs
Schulze
The Condorcet Criterion
Candidate who defeats every other candidate by pair-wise majority,
must be the winner.
Software
Voting
rule
Software
>
>
Software
>
>
>
Software
>
Relaxing Condorcet: Different notions of winners
β€’ Copeland: most pairwise victories
Condorcet winners may not always exist: how to select?
β€’ Maximin: maximize the minimum margin of victory
Relaxing Condorcet via Tournament Graphs
β€’ Copeland: most pairwise victories
β€’ Maximin: maximize the minimum margin of victory
Depend only on (weighted) tournament graph
Tournament graph 𝑇
Weighted Tournament graph π‘Š
1
2
Software
2
2
β€’ Copeland: maximum outgoing edges in 𝑇
β€’ Maximin: maximize the minimum weight of any outgoing edge in π‘Š
β€’ Other Condorcet Consistent Rules: Ranked Pairs, Schulze, …
Condorcet criterion for Bundles
Combinatorial Voting
Care about every item
Compare all bundles
Our Work
Proportional Representation
Care about favorite item
Compare bundle to items outside the bundle
[Gehrlein, 1985]
Condorcet Winning Every item in the bundle, defeats every item outside
Bundle
Another Angle on Gehrlein’s notion
Strong Every item in the bundle, defeats every item outside
≑
Gehrlein
Stability
Defeats every neighboring bundle
Local dominance:
β€’ Compare to neighboring bundles
Weighted majority graphs for π‘˜-size bundles
Software
Software
Software
Local (Weighted) Majority graph of π‘˜-bundles 𝑇 (π‘˜) (π‘Š (π‘˜) )
β€’ Condorcet criterion: Bundle with outgoing edges to every neighbor
β€’ Local Condorcet winner [Xia et al. β€˜08, Conitzer et al. β€˜11]
Generic Template for Condorcet Consistent
Bundling
Condorcet winning bundles may not always exist
Single winner Condorcet rule depending on 𝑇 (π‘Š)
Bundling Condorcet rule depending on 𝑇 (π‘˜) (π‘Š (π‘˜) )
Copeland(k) bundle: maximum outgoing edges in 𝑇 (π‘˜)
Maximin (k) bundle: maximizes the minimum weight of any outgoing
edge in π‘Š (π‘˜)
JAIR
Example (N=100 users, k=3)
Software
35
55
80
Software
JAIR
90
Software
80
JAIR
Software
70
Copeland winning bundle
(score = 2 bundles defeated)
JAIR
Maximin Winning
Bundle
(score = 35)
55
(k)
Copeland Mechanism
β€’ Copeland winner iff it maximizes pairwise defeats of items not in the
bundle
β€’ Maximum size cut in 𝑇
Theorem: Compute optimal Copeland (k) bundle efficiently
(no ties case):
οƒ˜Select π‘˜ items with largest out-degree in 𝑇
(k)
Maximin Mechanism
β€’ Computing optimal bundle of size π‘˜ is NP-hard
β€’ Relax size constraint
β€’ Maximin Score of Bundle B
Largest β„“ β‰₯ 0 s.t, at least β„“ users prefer B to any neighbor B’.
Size-Relaxing Maximin-Approx.
Theorem
Compute bundle of size ≀ 2π‘˜ that is as good as Opt.bundle of size k
in terms of maximin score
Why?
β€’ Seller may have some flexibility in deciding the size.
β€’ Cost borne by a benevolent seller, not buyer.
β€’ Buyers pay for π‘˜, and get a larger bundle that is at least as good as
the best bundle of size π‘˜.
Example: Government run library, tele-education package, …
Copeland 𝛼 - Dealing with ties
β€’ 𝛼 controls importance of tie
J
A
I
R
‒𝛼=1
J
A
I
R
β€’ 𝛼 = 0.5
J
A
I
R
‒𝛼=0
ECONOMETRICA
Algorithmica
COMSOC
ECONOMETRICA
ECONOMETRICA
π‘˜
Copeland (𝛼)
β€’ Copeland π‘˜ (𝛼) score is π‘œπ‘’π‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘’ + 𝛼 βˆ— 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠
in π‘Š (π‘˜)
β€’ Winner computation hard for 𝛼 = 0,1
β€’ OPT for 𝛼 = 0.5 using greedy algorithm
β€’ Pick k items w/ highest score.
β€’ 0.5-approx. using MAX-DICUT
β€’ min(2Ξ±, 1/2Ξ±)-approx. using greedy algorithm
Ranked Pairs and Schulze for Bundles
π‘Š (π‘˜)
Ranked Pairs (π‘˜)
β€’ Sort edges of π‘Š by dec. weight
β€’ Select edge if it does no cycle
β€’ Winner has no incoming edges
π‘Š (π‘˜)
Schulze (π‘˜)
β€’ 𝑆𝑝 (π‘₯, 𝑦) – min weight of π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑦 path in π‘Š
β€’ π‘†βˆ— (π‘₯, 𝑦) = max 𝑆𝑝 (π‘₯, 𝑦)
𝑃
β€’ Winner aβˆ— : π‘†βˆ— π‘Žβˆ— , π‘₯ β‰₯ π‘†βˆ— π‘₯, π‘Žβˆ—
Results
Poly-time algorithm for winning Ranked Pairs (π‘˜) and Schulze (π‘˜) bundles