DeepVoting: Learning and Fine-Tuning Voting Rules with Canonical Embeddings
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Aggregating agent preferences into a collective decision is an important step in many problems (e.g., hiring, elections, peer review) and across areas of computer science (e.g., reinforcement learning, recommender systems). As Social Choice Theory has shown, the problem of designing aggregation rules with specific sets of 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, 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 voting rules with desirable properties into one of learning probabilistic functions that output distributions over a set of candidates. Specifically, we use neural networks to learn probabilistic social choice functions. Using standard embeddings from the social choice literature we show that preference profile encoding has significant impact on the efficiency and ability of neural networks to learn rules, allowing us to learn rules faster and with smaller networks than previous work. Moreover, we show that our learned rules can be fine-tuned using axiomatic properties to create novel voting rules and make them resistant to specific types of "attack". Namely, we fine-tune rules to resist a probabilistic version of the No Show Paradox.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2024.
Builds on
10 of 43 references.
References · 10
- 2020FairRec: Two-Sided Fairness for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platformscited by 77
- 2021PreferenceNet: Encoding Human Preferences in Auction Design with Deep Learningcited by 22
- 2021Deep Learning for Two-Sided Matchingcited by 15
- 2021Learning Revenue-Maximizing Auctions With Differentiable Matchingcited by 14
- 2024Guide to Numerical Experiments on Elections in Computational Social Choicecited by 7
- 2022Expected Frequency Matrices of Elections: Computation, Geometry, and Preference Learningcited by 5
- 2024Computing Voting Rules with Elicited Incomplete Votescited by 5
- 2015Generating Single Peaked Votescited by 4
- 2016Optimal Bounds for the No-Show Paradox via SAT Solvingcited by 3
- 2013The Computational Complexity of Random Serial Dictatorshipcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.