Linear Social Choice with Few Queries: A Moment-Based Approach

Learning from human preference data is the dominant route to aligning language models with human values. In linear social choice, where rewards are linear in a fixed feature representation of prompt-response pairs, Ge et al.[2024] show that fitting such a reward by minimizing any non-decreasing convex loss, including BTL, fails PO and PMC. Moreover, no rule that reads only the majority relation can satisfy PO once the output is required to be linearly induced. We ask what it costs to enforce these axioms anyway. To this end, we relax the linear model to allow per-candidate slack. We compute the relaxed linear reward with the smallest total slack that satisfies the axioms with a margin $η$, the minimum required difference between two reward values. Our solution satisfies the axioms under no assumptions about the voters or how comparisons were collected. We bound the optimal total slack by $O(1)$ when $η$ is at most $O(\frac{1}{m^2})$ for $m$ candidates. Furthermore, we exhibit an instance that forces this bound, concluding that the rate is tight up to constants. In practice, the no. of candidates far exceeds the feature dimension, and only a linear reward can be evaluated on unseen responses. We therefore introduce a new method that charges the linear part for each comparison it gets wrong. It simultaneously minimizes the total slack and the no. of violations, with a parameter $λ$ trading off between them. We show that the total slack is monotone but saturating in $λ$: raising it reduces the violations of the deployed linear reward and increases the slack, yet the slack stays below $(η+Δ\sqrt{d})\lfloor m^2/4\rfloor$, where $Δ$ and $d$ are the diameter and dimension of the features, respectively. Experiments on both synthetic and real-life preference data corroborate our theory and show that the linear reward output by our method beats linear BTL.

Metric distortion has primarily been studied for social choice functions, which select a single winner from ordinal preferences. We extend this framework to social welfare functions, which output a ranking of $m$ candidates. We associate each voter $v$ with a monotone weight vector $\mathbf{w}_v = (w_{v1},\ldots,w_{vm})$, specifying the importance of the $i$-th position for voter $v$, and define the cost of a ranking as the position-weighted sum of their distances to the ranked candidates. This model generalizes both single-winner voting and committee selection. We consider three information regimes. First, we study the setting where the positional weight vectors are known. A natural approach recursively applies a single-winner rule with distortion $β$ to construct the ranking one position at a time. We show that this yields distortion at most $3β$ in general. This gap is not merely an artifact of the analysis: we show that no analysis based solely on per-round guarantees can certify a bound better than $2β$. By exploiting structural properties specific to Fractional Veto of Kizilkaya and Kempe, we show that its recursive extension achieves the optimal distortion of 3. Second, when all voters share the same unknown weight vector, recursively applying any social choice function with distortion $β$ achieves distortion at most $1+(β-1)\text{range}(\mathbf{w})$, where $\text{range}(\mathbf{w})=(w_1-w_m)/w_1$ denotes the normalized range of the common weight vector $\mathbf{w}$. Finally, we study unknown heterogeneous weights. Without further assumptions, every rule has unbounded distortion. We therefore consider two natural normalizations: unit-sum, where each voter distributes one unit of value across the ranking, and unit-top, where every voter assigns unit value to the first position. Under both models, we show that the optimal distortion is $Θ(m)$.

AI alignment and participatory design motivate a new democratic design problem: how to collectively choose a decision rule to use repeatedly. We study this problem for linear ranking rules, which repeatedly rank items $x_j$ within batches $X=(x_1,\dots,x_m)\in(\mathbb{R}^d)^m$, where each item's ranking is dictated by its score $\langle θ^*,x_j\rangle$ according to a fixed scoring vector $θ^*$. Given voters' preferred scoring vectors $θ^{(1)},\dots,θ^{(n)}$ and their population fractions $α^{(1)},\dots,α^{(n)}$, we ask how to choose a collective vector $θ^*$ satisfying individual proportionality (IP): every voter type $i$ should agree with the resulting rankings to an $α^{(i)}$-proportional degree, either on average over time (long-run IP) or even within each batch (per-batch IP). The default rule, the arithmetic mean of the $θ^{(i)}$, has been shown to be severely majoritarian; more generally, it is not clear that any fixed linear rule can balance many voters' disparate opinions. Our main result is that, surprisingly, there is a simple rule that does satisfy long-run IP: the angular mean, the spherical analog of the arithmetic mean. We then show that exact per-batch IP is impossible for fixed linear rules, but that the gap between per-batch and long-run IP shrinks quickly with batch size. Experiments on three real-world preference datasets show that all rules perform similarly when voters' preferences are homogeneous, while the angular mean substantially improves proportionality in high-disagreement regimes.