Breaking the Metric Voting Distortion Barrier
Moses Charikar, Kangning Wang, Prasanna Ramakrishnan, Hongxun Wu
Abstract
We consider the following well-studied problem of metric distortion in social choice. Suppose we have an election with n voters and m candidates located in a shared metric space. We would like to design a voting rule that chooses a candidate whose average distance to the voters is small. However, instead of having direct access to the distances in the metric space, the voting rule obtains, from each voter, a ranked list of the candidates in order of distance. Can we design a rule that regardless of the election instance and underlying metric space, chooses a candidate whose cost differs from the true optimum by only a small factor (known as the distortion)?
A long line of work culminated in finding optimal deterministic voting rules with metric distortion 3. However, for randomized voting rules, there is still a significant gap in our understanding: Even though the best lower bound is substantially lower at 2.112, the best upper bound is still 3, which is attained even by simple rules such as Random Dictatorship. Finding a randomized rule that guarantees distortion 3 -ε for some constant ε has been a major challenge in computational social choice, as prevalent approaches to designing voting rules are known to be insufficient. In particular, such a voting rule must use information beyond aggregate comparisons between pairs of candidates, and cannot only assign positive probability to candidates that are voters' top choices.
In this work, we give a rule that guarantees distortion less than 2.753. To do so we study a handful of voting rules that are new to the problem. One is Maximal Lotteries, a rule based on the Nash equilibrium of a natural zero-sum game which dates back to the 60's. The others are novel rules that can be thought of as hybrids of Random Dictatorship and the Copeland rule. Though none of these rules can beat distortion 3 alone, a careful randomization between Maximal Lotteries and any of the novel rules can.
C.1 Distortion for (Weighted) Uncovered Set Rules 33 C.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 00731c0c-e0bb-48c8-9c46-e8e631d32f86Cited by top-tier papers9
- Distortion of AI Alignment: Does Preference Optimization Optimize for Preferences?Paul Gölz, Nika Haghtalab, Kunhe YangNeurIPS 2025 · 29 citations
- Can a Few Decide for Many? The Metric Distortion of SortitionIoannis Caragiannis, Evi Micha, Jannik PetersICML 2024 · 11 citations
- Low-Distortion Clustering with Ordinal and Limited Cardinal InformationJakob Burkhardt, Ioannis Caragiannis, Karl Fehrs, Matteo Russo et al.AAAI 2024 · 8 citations
- Tight Bounds on the Distortion of Randomized and Deterministic Distributed VotingMohammad Ali Abam, Davoud Kareshki, Marzie Nilipour, Mohammad Hossein Paydar et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 3 citations
- Constant-Factor Distortion Mechanisms for k-Committee ElectionHaripriya Pulyassary, Chaitanya SwamyAAAI 2025 · 1 citation
Builds on5
- The Metric Distortion of Multiwinner VotingIoannis Caragiannis, Nisarg Shah, Alexandros A. VoudourisAAAI 2022 · 49 citations
- Communication, Distortion, and Randomness in Metric VotingDavid KempeAAAI 2020 · 45 citations
- Resolving the Optimal Metric Distortion ConjectureVasilis Gkatzelis, Daniel Halpern, Nisarg ShahFOCS 2020 · 44 citations
- An Analysis Framework for Metric Voting based on LP DualityDavid KempeAAAI 2020 · 37 citations
- Metric Distortion Bounds for Randomized Social ChoiceMoses Charikar, Prasanna RamakrishnanSODA 2022 · 18 citations
Related papers
- Metric Distortion of Small-Group DeliberationAshish Goel, Mohak Goyal, Kamesh MunagalaSTOC 2025 · 1 citation
- Bi-Criteria Metric DistortionKiarash Banihashem, Diptarka Chakraborty, Shayan Chashm Jahan, Iman Gholami et al.ICLR 2026
- Worst-Case Voting When the Stakes Are HighAnson Kahng, Gregory KehneAAAI 2022 · 3 citations
- Improved Metric Distortion via Threshold ApprovalsElliot Anshelevich, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Christopher Jerrett, Alexandros A. VoudourisAAAI 2024 · 10 citations
- Dimensionality and Coordination in Voting: The Distortion of STVIoannis Anagnostides, Dimitris Fotakis, Panagiotis PatsilinakosAAAI 2022 · 7 citations
