Search for: All records

Recent research on instant runoff voting (IRV) shows that it exhibits a striking property over unimodal one-dimensional preferences: there is an exclusion zone around the median voter such that the winner must come from the exclusion zone, unless no such candidate exists. Thus, IRV cannot elect an extreme candidate in this setting as long as a sufficiently moderate candidate runs. In this work, we examine the mathematical structure of exclusion zones as a broad phenomenon in more general preference spaces. We prove that with voters uniformly distributed over any d-dimensional hyperrectangle (for d > 1), IRV has no such exclusion zone. However, we also show that IRV exclusion zones are not solely a one-dimensional phenomenon. For irregular higher-dimensional preference spaces with fewer symmetries than hyperrectangles, IRV can have nontrivial exclusion zones. As a further exploration, we study IRV exclusion zones with graph-based preferences, where nodes represent voters who prefer candidates closer to them in the graph. Here, we show that IRV exclusion zones present a surprising computational challenge: even checking whether a given set of positions is an IRV exclusion zone is NP-hard. We develop an efficient randomized approximation algorithm for checking and finding exclusion zones in graphs. Finally, we report on computational experiments with exclusion zones: (i) performing an exhaustive computer search of small graphs and trees, we find nontrivial IRV exclusion zones in most small graphs; and (ii) applying our approximation algorithm to a collection of larger real-world school friendship networks, we find that about 60% of these networks have probable nontrivial IRV exclusion zones. While our focus is on IRV, the properties of exclusion zones we establish provide new methods for analyzing voting systems in metric spaces more generally. 

We describe HypotheSAEs, a general method to hypothesize interpretable relationships between text data (e.g., headlines) and a target variable (e.g., clicks). HypotheSAEs has three steps: (1) train a sparse autoencoder on text embeddings to produce interpretable features describing the data distribution, (2) select features that predict the target variable, and (3) generate a natural language interpretation of each feature (e.g., mentions being surprised or shocked) using an LLM. Each interpretation serves as a hypothesis about what predicts the target variable. Compared to baselines, our method better identifies reference hypotheses on synthetic datasets (at least +0.06 in F1) and produces more predictive hypotheses on real datasets (~twice as many significant findings), despite requiring 1-2 orders of magnitude less compute than recent LLM-based methods. HypotheSAEs also produces novel discoveries on two well-studied tasks: explaining partisan differences in Congressional speeches and identifying drivers of engagement with online headlines. 

The gold standard in human-AI collaboration is complementarity: when combined performance exceeds both the human and algorithm alone. We investigate this challenge in binary classification settings where the goal is to maximize 0-1 accuracy. Given two or more agents who can make calibrated probabilistic predictions, we show a No Free Lunch-style result. Any deterministic collaboration strategy (a function mapping calibrated probabilities into binary classifications) that does not essentially always defer to the same agent will sometimes perform worse than the least accurate agent. In other words, complementarity cannot be achieved for free. The result does suggest one model of collaboration with guarantees, where one agent identifies obvious errors of the other agent. We also use the result to understand the necessary conditions enabling the success of other collaboration techniques, providing guidance to human-AI collaboration. 

A core tension in the study of plurality elections is the clash between the classic Hotelling-Downs model, which predicts that two office-seeking candidates should cater to the median voter, and the empirical observation that democracies often have two major parties with divergent policies. Motivated in part by this tension, we introduce a dynamic model of candidate positioning based on a simple bounded rationality heuristic: candidates imitate the policy of previous winners. The resulting model is closely connected to evolutionary replicator dynamics. For uniformly-distributed voters, we prove in our model that with k = 2, 3, or 4 candidates per election, any symmetric candidate distribution converges over time to the center. With k ≥ 5 candidates per election, however, we prove that the candidate distribution does not converge to the center and provide an even stronger non-convergence result in a special case with no extreme candidates. Our conclusions are qualitatively unchanged if a small fraction of candidates are not winner-copiers and are instead positioned uniformly at random in each election. Beyond our theoretical analysis, we illustrate our results in extensive simulations; for five or more candidates, we find a tendency towards the emergence of two clusters, a mechanism suggestive of Duverger's Law, the empirical finding that plurality leads to two-party systems. Our simulations also explore several variations of the model, where we find the same general pattern: convergence to the center with four or fewer candidates, but not with five or more. Finally, we discuss the relationship between our replicator dynamics model and prior work on strategic equilibria of candidate positioning games. 

Instant runoff voting (IRV) has recently gained popularity as an alternative to plurality voting for political elections, with advocates claiming a range of advantages, including that it produces more moderate winners than plurality and could thus help address polarization. However, there is little theoretical backing for this claim, with existing evidence focused on case studies and simulations. In this work, we prove that IRV has a moderating effect relative to plurality voting in a precise sense, developed in a 1-dimensional Euclidean model of voter preferences. We develop a theory of exclusion zones, derived from properties of the voter distribution, which serve to show how moderate and extreme candidates interact during IRV vote tabulation. The theory allows us to prove that if voters are symmetrically distributed and not too concentrated at the extremes, IRV cannot elect an extreme candidate over a moderate. In contrast, we show plurality can and validate our results computationally. Our methods provide new frameworks for the analysis of voting systems, deriving exact winner distributions geometrically and establishing a connection between plurality voting and stick-breaking processes.