Milan Mossé

Algorithms for resolving majority cycles in preference aggregation have been studied extensively in computational social choice. Several sophisticated cycle-resolving methods, including Tideman’s Ranked Pairs, Schulze’s Beat Path, and Heitzig’s River, are refinements of the Split Cycle (SC) method that resolves majority cycles by discarding the weak- est majority victories in each cycle. Recently, Holliday and Pacuit proposed a new refinement of Split Cycle, dubbed Stable Voting, and a simplification thereof, called Simple Stable Voting (SSV). They conjectured that SSV is a refinement of SC whenever no two majority victories are of the same size. In this paper, we prove the conjecture up to 6 alternatives and refute it for more than 6 alternatives. While our proof of the conjecture for up to 5 alternatives uses traditional mathematical reasoning, our 6-alternative proof and 7-alternative counterexample were obtained with the use of SAT solving. The SAT encoding underlying this proof and counterexample is applicable far beyond SC and SSV: it can be used to test properties of any voting method whose choice of winners depends only on the ordering of margins of victory by size.

By issuing requests of one another, we seem to wield what is, on reflection, a remarkable power: to create reasons at will. But how can requesters give us reasons to do what they want, even when they stand in no relation of authority over us? And what would be lost if we saw requests as communicating the existence of pre-existing reasons, rather than creating new ones? I propose that a request creates a reason when and because treating the request as a reason would help the addressee to better comply with a duty to perform acts of the kind requested. I show that this view explains how requests create reasons, why requesting is valuable, and how the reasons created by requests depend on antecedent considerations. I argue, further, that it clarifies the discretionary nature of the reasons created by requests, gives a unified account of how requests create reasons among intimates and strangers, and reveals important forms of unfairness that result from requests.

Ibeling et al. (2023) axiomatize increasingly expressive languages of causation and probability, and Mossé et al. (2024) show that reasoning (specifically the satisfiability problem) in each causal language is as difficult, from a computational complexity perspective, as reasoning in its merely probabilistic or “correlational” counterpart. Introducing a summation operator to capture common devices that appear in applications—such as the do-calculus of Pearl (2009) for causal inference, which makes ample use of marginalization—van der Zander et al. (2023) partially extend these earlier complexity results to causal and probabilistic languages with marginalization. We complete this extension, fully characterizing the complexity of probabilistic and causal reasoning with summation, demonstrating that these again remain equally difficult. Surprisingly, allowing free variables for random variable values results in a system that is undecidable, so long as the ranges of these random variables are unrestricted. We finally axiomatize these languages featuring marginalization (or more generally summation), resolving open questions posed by Ibeling et al. (2023).

The seminal Satisfiability Coding Lemma of Paturi, Pudlák, and Zane is a coding scheme for satisfying assignments of k-CNF formulas. We generalize it to give a coding scheme for implicants and use this generalized scheme to establish new structural and algorithmic properties of prime implicants of k-CNF formulas. Our first application is a near-optimal bound of n⋅ 3^{n(1-Ω(1/k))} on the number of prime implicants of any n-variable k-CNF formula. This resolves an open problem from the Ph.D. thesis of Talebanfard, who proved such a bound for the special case of constant-read k-CNF formulas. Our proof is algorithmic in nature, yielding an algorithm for computing the set of all prime implicants - the Blake Canonical Form - of a given k-CNF formula. The problem of computing the Blake Canonical Form of a given function is a classic one, dating back to Quine, and our work gives the first non-trivial algorithm for k-CNF formulas.

Dwork, Hardt, Pitassi, Reingold, & Zemel [6] introduced two notions of fairness, each of which is meant to formalize the notion of similar treatment for similarly qualified individuals. The first of these notions, which we call additive metric fairness, has received much attention in subsequent work studying the fairness of a system composed of classifiers which are fair when considered in isolation [3, 4, 7, 8, 12] and in work studying the relationship between fair treatment of individuals and fair treatment of groups [6, 7, 13]. Here, we extend these lines of research to the second, less-studied notion, which we call multiplicative metric fairness. In particular, we exactly characterize the fairness of conjunctions and disjunctions of multiplicative metric fair classifiers, and the extent to which a classifier which satisfies multiplicative metric fairness also treats groups fairly. This characterization reveals that whereas additive metric fairness becomes easier to satisfy when probabilities of acceptance are small, leading to unfairness under functional and group compositions, multiplicative metric fairness is better-behaved, due to its scale-invariance.

Kamm’s sore throat case gives us a choice: save one life or save a distinct life and cure a sore throat. We defend the fairness explanation of the judgement that one should flip a coin to decide whom to save: it is disrespectful to let a sore throat act as a tie-breaker, because an individual would be forced to forgo a 50% fair chance of living (given to them by a coin flip), which cannot be outweighed by any number of sore throats. We show that this explanation of when and why claims can permissibly break ties generates new problem cases for theories of aggregation, including theories that have been thought to accommodate the judgement that one should flip a coin in Kamm’s sore throat case. We then generalize the fairness explanation to cases involving multiple groups.

Foundation models such as GPT-4 are fine-tuned to avoid unsafe or otherwise problematic behavior, such as helping to commit crimes or producing racist text. One approach to fine-tuning, called reinforcement learning from human feedback, learns from humans' expressed preferences over multiple outputs. Another approach is constitutional AI, in which the input from humans is a list of high-level principles. But how do we deal with potentially diverging input from humans? How can we aggregate the input into consistent data about "collective" preferences or otherwise use it to make collective choices about model behavior? In this paper, we argue that the field of social choice is well positioned to address these questions, and we discuss ways forward for this agenda, drawing on discussions in a recent workshop on Social Choice for AI Ethics and Safety held in Berkeley, CA, USA in December 2023.

This paper explores the space of (propositional) probabilistic logical languages, ranging from a purely `qualitative' comparative language to a highly `quantitative' language involving arbitrary polynomials over probability terms. While talk of qualitative vs. quantitative may be suggestive, we identify a robust and meaningful boundary in the space by distinguishing systems that encode (at most) additive reasoning from those that encode additive and multiplicative reasoning. The latter includes not only languages with explicit multiplication but also languages expressing notions of dependence and conditionality. We show that the distinction tracks a divide in computational complexity: additive systems remain complete for NP, while multiplicative systems are robustly complete for ∃ℝ. We also address axiomatic questions, offering several new completeness results as well as a proof of non-finite-axiomatizability for comparative probability. Repercussions of our results for conceptual and empirical questions are addressed, and open problems are discussed.

Many tasks in statistical and causal inference can be construed as problems of entailment in a suitable formal language. We ask whether those problems are more difficult, from a computational perspective, for causal probabilistic languages than for pure probabilistic (or “associational”) languages. Despite several senses in which causal reasoning is indeed more complex—both expressively and inferentially—we show that causal entailment (or satisfiability) problems can be systematically and robustly reduced to purely probabilistic problems. Thus there is no jump in computational complexity. Along the way we answer several open problems concerning the complexity of well-known probability logics, in particular demonstrating the ${\exists \mathbb {R}}$ -completeness of a polynomial probability calculus, as well as a seemingly much simpler system, the logic of comparative conditional probability.