TY - GEN
T1 - From Arrow’s Impossibility to Schwartz’s Tournament Equilibrium Set
T2 - 12th International Conference on Relational and Algebraic Methods in Computer Science, RAMICS 2011
AU - Brandt, Felix
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2011, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - Perhaps the most influential result in social choice theory is Arrow’s impossibility theorem, which states that a seemingly modest set of desiderata cannot be satisfied when aggregating preferences [1]. While Arrow’s theorem might appear rather negative, it can also be interpreted in a positive way by identifying what can be achieved in preference aggregation. In this talk, I present a number of variations of Arrow’s theorem–such as those due to Mas-Colell and Sonnenschein [8] and Blau and Deb [2]–in their choice-theoretic version. The critical condition in all these theorems is the assumption of a rationalizing binary relation or equivalent notions of choice-consistency. The bulk of my presentation contains three escape routes from these results. The first one is to ignore consistency with respect to a variable set of alternatives altogether and require consistency with respect to a variable electorate instead. As Smith [12] and Young [14] have famously shown, this essentially characterizes the class of scoring rules, which contains plurality and Borda’s rule. For the second escape route, we factorize choice-consistency into two parts, contraction-consistency and expansions-consistency [11]. While even the mildest dose of the former has severe consequences on the possibility of choice, varying degrees of the latter characterize a number of appealing social choice functions, namely the top cycle, the uncovered set, and the Banks set [3,9,4]. Finally, I suggest to redefine choice-consistency by making reference to the set of chosen alternatives rather than individual chosen alternatives [6]. It turns out that the resulting condition is a weakening of transitive rationalizability and can be used to characterize the minimal covering set and the bipartisan set. Based on a two decades-old conjecture due to Schwartz [10], the tournament equilibrium set can be characterized by the same condition or, alternatively, by a weak expansion-consistency condition from the second escape route. Whether Schwartz’s conjecture actually holds remains a challenging combinatorial problem as well as one of the enigmatic open problems of social choice theory. Throughout the presentation I will discuss the algorithmic aspects of all considered social choice functions. While some of the mentioned functions can be easily computed, other ones do not admit an efficient algorithm unless P equals NP [13,5,7].
AB - Perhaps the most influential result in social choice theory is Arrow’s impossibility theorem, which states that a seemingly modest set of desiderata cannot be satisfied when aggregating preferences [1]. While Arrow’s theorem might appear rather negative, it can also be interpreted in a positive way by identifying what can be achieved in preference aggregation. In this talk, I present a number of variations of Arrow’s theorem–such as those due to Mas-Colell and Sonnenschein [8] and Blau and Deb [2]–in their choice-theoretic version. The critical condition in all these theorems is the assumption of a rationalizing binary relation or equivalent notions of choice-consistency. The bulk of my presentation contains three escape routes from these results. The first one is to ignore consistency with respect to a variable set of alternatives altogether and require consistency with respect to a variable electorate instead. As Smith [12] and Young [14] have famously shown, this essentially characterizes the class of scoring rules, which contains plurality and Borda’s rule. For the second escape route, we factorize choice-consistency into two parts, contraction-consistency and expansions-consistency [11]. While even the mildest dose of the former has severe consequences on the possibility of choice, varying degrees of the latter characterize a number of appealing social choice functions, namely the top cycle, the uncovered set, and the Banks set [3,9,4]. Finally, I suggest to redefine choice-consistency by making reference to the set of chosen alternatives rather than individual chosen alternatives [6]. It turns out that the resulting condition is a weakening of transitive rationalizability and can be used to characterize the minimal covering set and the bipartisan set. Based on a two decades-old conjecture due to Schwartz [10], the tournament equilibrium set can be characterized by the same condition or, alternatively, by a weak expansion-consistency condition from the second escape route. Whether Schwartz’s conjecture actually holds remains a challenging combinatorial problem as well as one of the enigmatic open problems of social choice theory. Throughout the presentation I will discuss the algorithmic aspects of all considered social choice functions. While some of the mentioned functions can be easily computed, other ones do not admit an efficient algorithm unless P equals NP [13,5,7].
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85037379337&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-642-21070-9_4
DO - 10.1007/978-3-642-21070-9_4
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85037379337
SN - 9783642210693
T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
SP - 50
EP - 51
BT - Relational and Algebraic Methods in Computer Science - 12th International Conference, RAMICS 2011, Proceedings
A2 - de Swart, Harrie
PB - Springer Verlag
Y2 - 30 May 2011 through 3 June 2011
ER -