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 weakest 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.

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.

In modern computer science education, massive open online courses (MOOCs) log thousands of hours of data about how students solve coding challenges. Being so rich in data, these platforms have garnered the interest of the machine learning community, with many new algorithms attempting to autonomously provide feedback to help future students learn. But what about those first hundred thousand students? In most educational contexts (i.e. classrooms), assignments do not have enough historical data for supervised learning. In this paper, we introduce a human-in-the-loop “rubric sampling” approach to tackle the “zero shot” feedback challenge. We are able to provide autonomous feedback for the first students working on an introductory programming assignment with accuracy that substantially outperforms data-hungry algorithms and approaches human level fidelity. Rubric sampling requires minimal teacher effort, can associate feedback with specific parts of a student’s solution and can articulate a student’s misconceptions in the language of the instructor. Deep learning inference enables rubric sampling to further improve as more assignment specific student data is acquired. We demonstrate our results on a novel dataset from Code.org, the world’s largest programming education platform.