Optimal bounds for dissatisfaction in perpetual voting

Alexander Kozachinskiy, Alexander Shen, Tomasz Steifer
12/20/2024
cs.GTcs.AIcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

In perpetual voting, multiple decisions are made at different moments in time. Taking the history of previous decisions into account allows us to satisfy properties such as proportionality over periods of time. In this paper, we consider the following question: is there a perpetual approval voting method that guarantees that no voter is dissatisfied too many times? We identify a sufficient condition on voter behavior -- which we call 'bounded conflicts' condition -- under which a sublinear growth of dissatisfaction is possible. We provide a tight upper bound on the growth of dissatisfaction under bounded conflicts, using techniques from Kolmogorov complexity. We also observe that the approval voting with binary choices mimics the machine learning setting of prediction with expert advice. This allows us to present a voting method with sublinear guarantees on dissatisfaction under bounded conflicts, based on the standard techniques from prediction with expert advice.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{kozachinskiy2024optimal,
  title  = {Optimal bounds for dissatisfaction in perpetual voting},
  author = {Alexander Kozachinskiy and Alexander Shen and Tomasz Steifer},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2501.01969},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01969v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2501.01969.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2501.01969)

Discussion