Abstract:Sortition, the random selection of political representatives, is increasingly being used around the world to choose participants of deliberative processes like Citizens' Assemblies. Motivated by sortition's practical importance, there has been a recent flurry of research on sortition algorithms, whose task it is to select a panel from among a pool of volunteers. This panel must satisfy quotas enforcing representation of key population subgroups. Past work has contributed an algorithmic approach for fulfilling this task while ensuring that volunteers' chances of selection are maximally equal, as measured by any convex equality objective. The question, then, is: which equality objective is the right one? Past work has mainly studied the objectives Minimax and Leximin, which respectively minimize the maximum and maximize the minimum chance of selection given to any volunteer. Recent work showed that both of these objectives have key weaknesses: Minimax is highly robust to manipulation but is arbitrarily unfair; oppositely, Leximin is highly fair but arbitrarily manipulable. In light of this gap, we propose a new equality objective, Goldilocks, that aims to achieve these ideals simultaneously by ensuring that no volunteer receives too little or too much chance of selection. We theoretically bound the extent to which Goldilocks achieves these ideals, finding that in an important sense, Goldilocks recovers among the best available solutions in a given instance. We then extend our bounds to the case where the output of Goldilocks is transformed to achieve a third goal, Transparency. Our empirical analysis of Goldilocks in real data is even more promising: we find that this objective achieves nearly instance-optimal minimum and maximum selection probabilities simultaneously in most real instances -- an outcome not even guaranteed to be possible for any algorithm.

What If I Don't Like Any Of The Choices? The Limits of Preference Elicitation for Participatory Algorithm Design

A Probabilistic Approach for Extracting Design Preferences from Design Team Discussion

Are algorithms always fair? The study on public preferences toward algorithmic decision‐making: A case study from the perspectives of decision scenarios and social roles

Keeping Designers in the Loop: Communicating Inherent Algorithmic Trade-offs Across Multiple Objectives

Designing Equitable Algorithms

People Prefer Moral Discretion to Algorithms: Algorithm Aversion Beyond Intransparency

Measuring preferences for algorithms — How willing are people to cede control to algorithms?

An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making

Ruled by robots: preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices

From Utilitarian to Rawlsian Designs for Algorithmic Fairness

Applying Social Choice Theory to Solve Engineering Multi-objective Optimization Problems

Exploiting Preference Elicitation in Interactive and User-centered Algorithmic Recourse: An Initial Exploration

Sequential Deliberation for Social Choice

Algorithmic Fairness and Social Welfare

Fair, Manipulation-Robust, and Transparent Sortition

Good for the Many or Best for the Few? A Dilemma in the Design of Algorithmic Advice

Proportional Aggregation of Preferences for Sequential Decision Making

"Public(s)-in-the-Loop": Facilitating Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions in Contentious Public Policy Domains

Efficient Social Choice via NLP and Sampling

The Disparate Equilibria of Algorithmic Decision Making when Individuals Invest Rationally

Fair Voting Outcomes with Impact and Novelty Compromises? Unraveling Biases in Electing Participatory Budgeting Winners