Bi-Criteria Metric Distortion
Kiarash Banihashem, Diptarka Chakraborty, Shayan Chashm Jahan, Iman Gholami, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Mohammad Mahdavi, Max Springer
Abstract
Selecting representatives based on voters' preferences is a fundamental problem in social choice theory. While cardinal utility functions offer a detailed representation of preferences, voters often cannot precisely quantify their affinity towards a given candidate. As a result, modern voting systems rely on ordinal rankings to simplistically represent preference profiles. In quantifying the suboptimality of solutions due to the loss of information when using ordinal preferences, the metric distortion framework models voters and candidates as points in a metric space, with distortion bounding the efficiency loss. Prior works within this framework use the distance between a voter and a candidate in the underlying metric as the cost of selecting the candidate for the given voter, with a goal of minimizing the sum (utilitarian) or maximum (egalitarian) of costs across voters. For deterministic election mechanisms selecting a single winning candidate, the best possible distortion is known to be 3 for any metric, as established by Gkatzelis, Halpern, and Shah (FOCS'20). In contrast, for randomized mechanisms, distortions cannot be lower than , as shown by Charikar and Ramakrishnan (SODA'22), and there exists a mechanism with a distortion guarantee of , according to Charikar, Ramakrishnan, Wang, and Wu (SODA'24 Best Paper Award). Our work asks: can one obtain a better approximation compared to an optimal candidate by selecting a committee of candidates (), where the cost of a voter is defined to be its distance to the closest candidate in the committee? We affirmatively answer this question by introducing the concept of bi-criteria approximation within the metric distortion framework. In the line metric, it is possible to achieve optimal cost with only candidates. In contrast, we also prove that in both the two-dimensional and tree metrics -- which naturally generalize the line metric -- achieving optimal cost is impossible unless all candidates are selected. These results apply to both utilitarian and egalitarian objectives. Our results establish a stark separation between the line metric and the 2D or tree metric in the context of the metric distortion problem.
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 862d89ff-7a8e-410c-b664-e23c93fc7936Builds on10
- The Metric Distortion of Multiwinner VotingIoannis Caragiannis, Nisarg Shah, Alexandros A. VoudourisAAAI 2022 · 49 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
- Favorite-Candidate Voting for Eliminating the Least Popular Candidate in a Metric SpaceXujin Chen, Minming Li, Chenhao WangAAAI 2020 · 16 citations
Related papers
- Improved Metric Distortion via Threshold ApprovalsElliot Anshelevich, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Christopher Jerrett, Alexandros A. VoudourisAAAI 2024 · 10 citations
- Metric Distortion of Line-up Elections: The Right Person for the Right JobChristopher Jerrett, Yue Han, Elliot AnshelevichAAAI 2025
- On the Distortion of Committee Election with 1-Euclidean Preferences and Few Distance QueriesDimitris Fotakis, Laurent Gourvès, Panagiotis PatsilinakosAAAI 2025 · 2 citations
- Constant-Factor Distortion Mechanisms for k-Committee ElectionHaripriya Pulyassary, Chaitanya SwamyAAAI 2025 · 1 citation
- 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
