Smooth Partial Lotteries for Stable Randomized Selection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Competitive selection processes, from scientific funding to admissions and hiring, use evaluations to score candidates, and eventually choose a subset of them based on those scores. Recently, many organizations have adopted partial lotteries, which randomize selection based on evaluation scores. However, existing lottery designs are inherently unstable, as a small change to a single candidate's score can cause large shifts in their selection probabilities. This instability undermines a key goal of lotteries: reducing the influence of fine-grained score distinctions near the decision boundary. We propose smoothness as a design principle for partial lotteries, formalizing it as a Lipschitz condition on the mapping from review scores over candidates to selection probabilities. We introduce the Clipped Linear Lottery, a simple mechanism in which selection probabilities scale linearly with estimated quality between an upper threshold, above which we always accept, and a lower threshold, below which we always reject. We prove that the Clipped Linear Lottery's worst-case regret matches a lower bound for any smooth selection rule up to a factor of (1 - k/n), where k/n is the acceptance rate. We compare smooth selection to other stability notions like Individual Fairness and Differential Privacy, showing that the Clipped Linear Lottery achieves a better smoothness-regret tradeoff than alternatives. Experiments on real peer review data from ICLR 2025, NeurIPS 2024, and the Swiss National Science Foundation demonstrate that existing lottery designs are highly unstable in practice even under perturbations to a single score. Our experiments also confirm the tightness of our theoretical analysis and show that our proposed Clipped Linear Lottery achieves a better smoothness-utility tradeoff than alternatives in practice.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.
Builds on
11 of 40 references.
References · 11
- 2016From Softmax to Sparsemax: A Sparse Model of Attention and Multi-Label Classificationcited by 341
- 2019Stochastic Beams and Where to Find Them: The Gumbel-Top-k Trick for Sampling Sequences Without Replacementcited by 211
- 2020Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignmentscited by 38
- 2017Tight Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Selectioncited by 34
- 2025Softmax is 1/2-Lipschitz: A tight bound across all ℓp normscited by 22
- 2023Counterfactual Evaluation of Peer-Review Assignment Policiescited by 11
- 2017The Price of Selection in Differential Privacycited by 8
- 2024Vulnerability of Text-Matching in ML/AI Conference Reviewer Assignments to Collusionscited by 7
- 2020Fair and Useful Cohort Selectioncited by 3
- 2025Identity Theft in AI Conference Peer Reviewcited by 3
- 2025A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Fundingcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.