Optimizing Viscous Democracy
Extracted source text · arXiv 2405.06698
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% LaTeX Template for AAMAS-2024 (based on sample-sigconf.tex)
%%% Prepared by the AAMAS-2024 Program Chairs based on the version from AAMAS-2023.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Start your document with the \documentclass command.
%%% == IMPORTANT ==
%%% Use the first variant below for the final paper (including auithor information).
%%% Use the second variant below to anonymize your submission (no authoir information shown).
%%% For further information on anonymity and double-blind reviewing,
%%% please consult the call for paper information
%%% https://www.aamas2024-conference.auckland.ac.nz/calls/submission-instruction/
\documentclass[sigconf]{aamas}
%\documentclass[sigconf,anonymous]{aamas}
%%% Load required packages here (note that many are included already).
\usepackage{balance} % for balancing columns on the final page
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% AAMAS-2024 copyright block (do not change!)
\setcopyright{ifaamas}
\acmConference[AAMAS '24]{Proc.\@ of the 23rd International Conference
on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2024)}{May 6 -- 10, 2024}
{Auckland, New Zealand}{N.~Alechina, V.~Dignum, M.~Dastani, J.S.~Sichman (eds.)}
\copyrightyear{2024}
\acmYear{2024}
\acmDOI{}
\acmPrice{}
\acmISBN{}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% == IMPORTANT ==
%%% Use this command to specify your EasyChair submission number.
%%% In anonymous mode, it will be printed on the first page.
\acmSubmissionID{<<EasyChair submission id>>}
%%% Use this command to specify the title of your paper.
\title[AAMAS-2024 Formatting Instructions]{Formatting Instructions for the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems}
%%% Provide names, affiliations, and email addresses for all authors.
\author{Arthur Pendragon}
\affiliation{
\institution{Camelot Castle}
\city{Camelot}
\country{United Kingdom}}
\email{king.arthur@camelot.uk}
\author{Nimue}
\affiliation{
\institution{The Lady's Lake}
\city{Avalon}
\country{United Kingdom}}
\email{lady.of.the.lake@avalon.uk}
%%% Use this environment to specify a short abstract for your paper.
\begin{abstract}
This document outlines the formatting instructions for submissions to
AAMAS-2024. You can use its source file as a template when writing
your own paper. It is based on the file `\texttt{sample-sigconf.tex}'
distributed with the ACM article template for \LaTeX\@.
\end{abstract}
%%% The code below was generated by the tool at http://dl.acm.org/ccs.cfm.
%%% Please replace this example with code appropriate for your own paper.
%%% Use this command to specify a few keywords describing your work.
%%% Keywords should be separated by commas.
\keywords{Legends, Myths, Folktales}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Include any author-defined commands here.
\newcommand{\BibTeX}{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em\TeX}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
%%% The following commands remove the headers in your paper. For final
%%% papers, these will be inserted during the pagination process.
\pagestyle{fancy}
\fancyhead{}
%%% The next command prints the information defined in the preamble.
\maketitle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}
This document explains the main features of the `\texttt{aamas}'
document class, which is essentially identical to the `\texttt{acmart}'
document class provided by the ACM. The only difference is a minor
modification to allow for the correct copyright attribution to IFAAMAS.
For detailed documentation of the original document class, please refer
to the relevant website maintained by the~ACM:
%
\begin{center}
\url{https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template}
\end{center}
%
The first command in your source file should be either one of these:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[sigconf]{aamas}
\documentclass[sigconf,anonymous]{aamas}
\end{verbatim}
%
The first variant should be used for final papers. The second should be
used when you submit your paper for blind review; it will replace the
names of the authors with the submission number.
Make sure your paper includes the correct copyright information and
the correct specification of the \emph{ACM Reference Format}. Both of
these will be generated automatically if you include the correct
\emph{copyright block} as shown in the source file of this document.
Modifying the template---e.g., by changing margins, typeface sizes,
line spacing, paragraph or list definitions---or making excessive use
of the `\verb|\vspace|' command to manually adjust the vertical spacing
between elements of your work is not allowed. You risk getting your
submission rejected (or your final paper excluded from the proceedings)
in case such modifications are discovered. The `\texttt{aamas}' document
class requires the use of the \textit{Libertine} typeface family, which
should be included with your \LaTeX\ installation. Please do not use
other typefaces instead.
Please consult the \emph{Call for Papers} for information on matters
such as the page limit or anonymity requirements. It is available from
the conference website:
%
\begin{center}
\url{https://www.aamas2024-conference.auckland.ac.nz/}
\end{center}
%
To balance the columns on the final page of your paper, use the
`\texttt{balance}' package and issue the `\verb|\balance|' command
somewhere in the text of what would be the first column of the last
page without balanced columns. This will be required for final papers.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{The Preamble}
You will be assigned a submission number when you register the abstract
of your paper on \textit{EasyChair}. Include this number in your
document using the `\verb|\acmSubmissionID|' command.
Then use the familiar commands to specify the title and authors of your
paper in the preamble of the document. The title should be appropriately
capitalised (meaning that every `important' word in the title should
start with a capital letter). For the final version of your paper, make
sure to specify the affiliation and email address of each author using
the appropriate commands. Specify an affiliation and email address
separately for each author, even if two authors share the same
affiliation. You can specify more than one affiliation for an author by
using a separate `\verb|\affiliation|' command for each affiliation.
Provide a short abstract using the `\texttt{abstract}' environment.
Finally, specify a small number of keywords characterising your work,
using the `\verb|\keywords|' command.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{The Body of the Paper}
For help with typesetting the body of your paper in \LaTeX\@, please
make use of the familiar resources~\cite{Lam94}. In this section we
merely highlight a few specific features.
\subsection{Mathematical Expressions}
You can typeset all sorts of in-line mathematical expressions
with the usual \verb|$...$| construct, as in
$\Diamond\Diamond\varphi \rightarrow \Diamond\varphi$ or
$\boldsymbol{R} = (R_1,\ldots,R_n)$.
For more complex expressions, it may often be preferable to use one of
the various equation-type environments available in \LaTeX\@, as shown
in the following example:
%
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_i & = & \frac{u_i(x_i) - u_i(x_{-i})}{u_i(x_i)}
\end{eqnarray}
%
Here is a second example for an equation:
%
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:vcg}
p_i(\boldsymbol{\hat{v}}) & = &
\sum_{j \neq i} \hat{v}_j(f(\boldsymbol{\hat{v}}_{-i})) -
\sum_{j \neq i} \hat{v}_j(f(\boldsymbol{\hat{v}}))
\end{eqnarray}
%
Use the usual combination of `\verb|\label|' and `\verb|\ref|' to refer
to numbered equations, such as Equation~(\ref{eq:vcg}) above. Of course,
introducing numbers in the first place is only helpful if you in fact
need to refer back to the equation in question elsewhere in the paper.
\subsection{Tables and Figures}
Use the `\texttt{table}' environment (or its variant `\texttt{table*}')
in combination with the `\texttt{tabular}' environment to typeset tables
as floating objects. The `\texttt{aamas}' document class includes the
`\texttt{booktabs}' package for preparing high-quality tables. Tables
are often placed at the top of a page near their initial cite, as done
here for Table~\ref{tab:locations}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Locations of the first five editions of AAMAS}
\label{tab:locations}
\begin{tabular}{rll}\toprule
\textit{Year} & \textit{City} & \textit{Country} \\ \midrule
2002 & Bologna & Italy \\
2003 & Melbourne & Australia \\
2004 & New York City & USA \\
2005 & Utrecht & The Netherlands \\
2006 & Hakodate & Japan \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The caption of a table should be placed \emph{above} the table.
Always use the `\verb|\midrule|' command to separate header rows from
data rows, and use it only for this purpose. This enables assistive
technologies to recognise table headers and support their users in
navigating tables more easily.
%%% The following command should be issued somewhere in the first column
%%% of the final page of your paper.
\balance
Use the `\texttt{figure}' environment for figures. If your figure
contains third-party material, make sure to clearly identify it as such.
Every figure should include a caption, and this caption should be placed
\emph{below} the figure itself, as shown here for Figure~\ref{fig:logo}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{aamas2024logo}
\caption{The logo of AAMAS 2024}
\label{fig:logo}
\Description{Logo of AAMAS 2024 -- The 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.}
\end{figure}
In addition, every figure should also have a figure description, unless
it is purely decorative. Use the `\verb|\Description|' command for this
purpose. These descriptions will not be printed but can be used to
convey what's in an image to someone who cannot see it. They are also
used by search engine crawlers for indexing images, and when images
cannot be loaded. A figure description must consist of unformatted plain
text of up to 2000~characters. For example, the definition of
Figure~\ref{fig:logo} in the source file of this document includes the
following description: ``Logo of AAMAS 2024 -- The 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.'' For more information on how best to write figure descriptions
and why doing so is important, consult the information available here:
%
\begin{center}
\url{https://www.acm.org/publications/taps/describing-figures/}
\end{center}
%
The use of colour in figures and graphs is permitted, provided they
remain readable when printed in greyscale and provided they are
intelligible also for people with a colour vision deficiency.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Citations and References}
The use of the \BibTeX\ to prepare your list of references is highly
recommended. To include the references at the end of your document, put
the following two commands just before the `\verb|\end{document}|'
command in your source file:
%
\begin{verbatim}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\bibliography{mybibfile}
\end{verbatim}
%
Here we assume that `\texttt{mybibfile.bib}' is the name of your
\BibTeX\ file. Use the `\verb|\cite|' command to produce citations
to your references. Here are a few examples for citations of journal
articles~\cite{GrKr96,WoJe95}, books~\cite{Knu97}, articles in
conference proceedings~\cite{Hag1993}, technical reports~\cite{Har78},
Master's and PhD theses~\cite{Ani03,Cla85}, online videos~\cite{Oba08},
datasets~\cite{AnMC13}, and patents~\cite{Sci09}. Both citations and
references are numbered by default.
Make sure you provide complete and correct bibliographic information
for all your references, and list authors with their full names
(``Donald E.\ Knuth'') rather than just initials (``D.\ E.\ Knuth'').
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% The acknowledgments section is defined using the "acks" environment
%%% (rather than an unnumbered section). The use of this environment
%%% ensures the proper identification of the section in the article
%%% metadata as well as the consistent spelling of the heading.
\begin{acks}
If you wish to include any acknowledgments in your paper (e.g., to
people or funding agencies), please do so using the `\texttt{acks}'
environment. Note that the text of your acknowledgments will be omitted
if you compile your document with the `\texttt{anonymous}' option.
\end{acks}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% The next two lines define, first, the bibliography style to be
%%% applied, and, second, the bibliography file to be used.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\bibliography{sample}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{todonotes}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\newcommand{\shiri}[1]{{\color{blue}{Shiri says: #1}}}
\newcommand{\ben}[1]{{\color{green}{Ben says: #1}}}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\nimrod}[1]{\textcolor{red}{Nimrod: #1}}
\usepackage{hyperref}
%quotation packages.
\usepackage{quoting}
\usepackage{epigraph}
%To do notes package.
\usepackage{todonotes}
\newcommand{\insertref}[1]{\todo[color=green!40]{#1}}
\newcommand{\explainindetail}[1]{\todo[color=red!40]{#1}}
\newcommand{\missingProof}[1]{\todo[color=blue!40]{#1}}
%Graphics and images
\usepackage{graphicx}
%Logical Postulations
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{observation}{Observation}
\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{algorithm}{Algorithm}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newtheorem{proclamation}{Proclamation}
\newcommand{\calR}{\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\calCS}{\mathcal{CS}}
\newcommand{\calH}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\calN}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\calA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\V}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\calS}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\calL}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\calP}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\calM}{\mathcal{M}}
\newcommand{\calC}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\calD}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\calU}{\mathcal{U}}
%logical deductions commands.
\newcommand{\underClasue}[2]{\underset{#1 {\underbrace{#2}}}}
\newcommand{\brackets}[1]{\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\sqbrackets}[1]{\left[ #1\right]}
\newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\underSum}[1]{\underset{#1}{\sum}}
% Analysis commands
\newcommand{\diffBy}[1]{\frac{\partial}{\partial{#1}}}
\newcommand{\Sum}[2]{\overset{#2}{\underset{#1}{\sum}}}
\title{Real-World Liquid Democracy}
\date{\today}
\author{We The People}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
\section{Current Threads}
\begin{enumerate}
\item SCHELLING Segregation model adapted to social networks to reflect echo-chambers dynamics [?,?,?]
\item Viscous Democracy Modeling voting better.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Viscous Democracy}
We consider our problem where agents live in a social network $G = \brackets{V, E}$, and $\overline{q}\in\brackets{0,1}^n$ as the competence level for all the voters, at times we would abuse the notation with $\overline{q}_i = q_i = p_{i}$ as indicating the probability of $i$ voting correctly.
Alternatively, we can consider an instance where each agent can delegate to any agent in the graph, whether he will delegate depends on his immediate neighbourhood.
The idea behind it is that long delegation chains have less effect, the weight or score each node gets should be proportional to the following equation :
\begin{equation}
score\brackets{i}\propto\sum_{p \in \operatorname{Path}(-, i)} \alpha^{|p|}
\end{equation}
$\operatorname{Path}\brackets{-, i}$ - are all the possible paths of delegations that reach $i$, $\lvert p\rvert$ - is the length of the path. $\alpha$ is a \textit{viscosity} factor that controls how much weight propagates. $\alpha = 1$ gives standard liquid democracy while $\alpha < 1$ causes far delegations to give less weight,\nimrod{and $\alpha = 0$ means de-facto direct democracy?}. A notable effect of viscosity is that \textbf{delegation cycles become ``acceptable''} as a result of delegation weight degrading through the cycle and converging to a fixed point.
Here the edges are delegations edges, using these we define a weight for each voter and use that for actual voting.
A slightly more general version would allow voters to approve several voters and then the algorithm would choose which voter to delegate to in order to maximise the accuracy.
In \cite{SALEHIABARI2019empathy} the authors propose a framework to capture empathy to other voters preferences. In our work we relate to it by delegating to other voters and therefore assume voters delegate to voters with similar type of preferences.
\subsection{Model}
\begin{table}[]
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$Path(i, j)$ & Path between voters $i$ and $j$ \\
$p(i)$ & Accuracy of voter $i$ \\
$d^*(i)$ & The final delegate of voter $i$ \\
$\alpha$ & The viscous factor - how much weight degrades each delegation
\\
$P_{vd}$ &The group accuracy under viscous democracy
\end{tabular}
\caption{Notation Reference}
\end{table}
At first glance there may be interesting problems when applying VD to either ground truth voting or a preferential model. We can phrase this as an optimization or game-theoretic problem and the initial research question is which functions are optimized in an interesting way.
We could consider utility functions such as:
\begin{equation}
u(i) = influence(i) = |\operatorname{Path}(i, d^*(i))|^{\alpha}
\end{equation}
Which is the weight each delegator contributes to their guru's total weight. Is there a Nash Equilibrium there? Does it lead to good voting outcomes in some sense? Or,
% optimize group accuracy or my guru's accuracy
\begin{equation}
u(i) = f(d^*(i), \operatorname{Path}(i, d^*(i)))
\end{equation}
Some combination of the distance between a voter and their guru, and the accuracy of that guru. This could involve some confidence score that each voter has for each other voter - e.g. they're happier delegating to someone they are confident in but will settle for delegating a little bit of weight to someone they are less confident in. Or,
\begin{equation}
u(i) = p(d^*(i)) * |\operatorname{Path}(i, d^*(i))|^{\alpha}
\end{equation}
A combination of guru accuracy and distance from the guru.
\subsection{Counter Examples - with respect to $alpha$}
We introduce a counter intuitive example showing increasing value of $\alpha$ is not always positive.
\begin{example}\label{ex: non-monotone 3 active nodes}
Consider three independent chains of voters of lengths 5,2,2 denote the active voters at the end of these chains as $A,B,C$ of the first one with length 5, such that $p_A = 0.9$, $p_B=p_C=0.8$ then the weight of A under viscous democracy is $w_A=\Sum{i=0}{4} \alpha^i$, where as for $B,C$ it is $w_B=w_C=1+\alpha$. We have two cases :
\begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*)]
\item $w_A > w_B + w_C$, then the outcome is up to $A$'s vote, $P_{vd}=0.9$
\item $w_A \leq w_B + w_C$, here any two out of the three voters would be sufficient for majority, $P_{vd} = 0.928$
\end{enumerate}
For the (i) condition to hold we need $\alpha > 0.848$. hence if we initially had a value of $\alpha = 0.7$ moving it up to $\alpha = 0.9$ is actually a reduction in group accuracy. This contradicts the intuition that always higher $\alpha$ is better.
\begin{observation}
If we consider the same example just that $w_A = n$ we have a limit for the threshold of choosing appropriate alpha.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}{lim}\Sum{i=0}{n}\alpha^i - 2\alpha -2 &=0 \\
\frac{1}{1-\alpha} - 2\alpha -2 &= 0, \; 0<x<1 \\
2\brackets{1-\alpha^2}&=1 \\
\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &\approx 0.707
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Here we note that the example can be generalised $n$ delegates in the first chain such that the threshold for $alpha$ would get lower each time converging to $\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ from the top.
\end{observation}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
We can generalise that to $p_A = \beta, \beta > 0.5$
if we assume $B,C$ have the same probability $x$ and weight such that two out of the three is enough for majority then we can consider the polynomial that represents the difference between the two events taking place as $f\brackets{x} = \brackets{1 - 2\beta}x^2 + 2 \beta x - \beta$
\end{example}
\subsection{Potential Project Idea}
If agents are trying to maximize a measure such as group accuracy, or their own influence on vote outcome does the viscous parameter affect delegation behaviour?
\shiri{For now I think this is our focus}
\nimrod{This sounds very good generally; what I still do not understand is what is *The game* here; I mean, you speak of Nash equilibrium, and I can guess that the voters act as the players, but what is the space of strategies exactly?}
We can try to study this with simulation by using some optimization model (e.g. simulated annealing) to maximize the desired measure.
\nimrod{Maybe something like this e.g.: use the probability of hitting the ground truth as the thing that the group tries to maximize. Now, for each value of $\alpha$, compute an optimal delegation for all agents and compute the average length of the chain; then, a nice result will be the size of the chain in an optimal solution as a function of $\alpha$ (intuitively it should increase, right?)}
We can try to study this with theory. Are there attainable hardness results on optimizing liquid/viscous democracy?
\shiri{Most likely for a fixed $\alpha$ the reduction from the Evi Micha\cite{caragiannis2019contribution} would work here.. but have to verified. }
\section{Experimental Results}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{er-viscous-accuracy.png}
\caption{Accuracy of a few competence distributions with mean of 0.5 on an Erdos Renyi network with attachment probability of 0.2 with 500 voters.}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
Accuracy does very much depend on how viscous delegations are. But this is largely due to the fact that higher viscosity reduces the ability of delegators to empower the more competent voters. What would be interesting is a setting where higher viscosity actually improves group accuracy. Perhaps due to reduced susceptibility to echo chambers or some sort of game-theoretic incentivization that causes voters to balance whether they delegate or vote directly.
\section{Game Theoretic Results / Optimization considerations}
The strategic choice for which agent to select whom to delegate to. We consider the problem from a system design perspective, the designer control the delegations for all the voters.
Consider the state of a system as the delegation graph and the competencies a probabilities vector. $\left<G,\overline{q}\right>$,an sequence of improvements to G : $S = \left<G_1,..,G_n\right>$ s.t $G_i \rightarrow G_{i+1}$ each step is a shift for one specific voter, for instance $j$ changes his delegation, we also require that each step improves the \textit{group accuracy} explicitly that $P_{vd}\mid_{G_i}<P_{vd}\mid_{G_{i+1}}$
\begin{conjecture} Every improvement sequence is finite
\end{conjecture}
\begin{proof}
For each node $v\in V$ in the network we can have at most $N_G\brackets{i}$ (the neighbours of $i$) improvements, at each step the utility function $P_{vd}$ is strictly increasing and so we cannot repeat the same move twice. As such the maximum length of an improvement sequence would be $\underset{i\in V}{\sum}N_G\brackets{i}$.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Next Tasks}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fetching old code, making a fork for 'viscous' liquid stuff. (V)
\item Simulating it on few distributions observing its performance compared to standard LD
\end{enumerate}
\section{Schelling Model - Echo Chambers}
The original idea is the voter $i$ embedded in a Network would have to choose an action between delegation or voting directly, (abstention would be consider as random delegation) $a_i\in\set{d,v}$, to maximise his utility, we can consider that if a threshold $\gamma$ of his neighbours will delegate then he will delegate as well.
\nimrod{Oh, if I understand correctly you mean that a voter will stop delegating if she sees that many of her neighbors stopped delegating? It sounds like the problem of $k$-Core -- I can tell you about it -- anyhow, it sounds really interesting to me!}
It means that if few voters stop delegating then there is a cascade of voters whom would stop delegating and would vote directly, how would that affect the outcome ?
Maybe it should be separated to types and voters only delegate to their own type ?
The delegation itself can happen randomly, or we can attach competence levels to the voters and then assume the delegation would be dependent on some competence levels assignment mechanism.
\section{Scarcity of Attention}
How about we consider that given a budget $k$, where the budget is a proxy for the community cognitive burden. Voting directly incurs a cost of 1, delegating using random better 1/4, and potentially delegating to the best voter costs 1/2. Most likely it is enough to place cost on delegating and voting directly to get an interesting result.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{bibliography}
\end{document}
\documentclass[sigconf]{aamas}
% For the anonymous version
%\documentclass[sigconf,anonymous]{aamas}
%% Packages %%
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
\usepackage{balance}
\newcommand{\shiri}[1]{{\color{blue}{Shiri says: #1}}}
\newcommand{\ben}[1]{{\color{green}{Ben says: #1}}}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\nimrod}[1]{\textcolor{red}{Nimrod: #1}}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{subcaption}
%quotation packages.
\usepackage{quoting}
\usepackage{epigraph}
%To do notes package.
\usepackage{todonotes}
\newcommand{\insertref}[1]{\todo[color=green!40]{#1}}
\newcommand{\explainindetail}[1]{\todo[color=red!40]{#1}}
\newcommand{\missingProof}[1]{\todo[color=blue!40]{#1}}
%Graphics and images
\usepackage{graphicx}
%Creating graphs
\usepackage{tikz}
%Logical Postulations
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{observation}{Observation}
\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{algorithm}{Algorithm}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newtheorem{proclamation}{Proclamation}
\newtheorem{problem}{Problem}
\newcommand{\calR}{\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\calCS}{\mathcal{CS}}
\newcommand{\calH}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\calN}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\calA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\V}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\calS}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\calL}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\calP}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\calM}{\mathcal{M}}
\newcommand{\calC}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\calD}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\calU}{\mathcal{U}}
%logical deductions commands.
\newcommand{\underClasue}[2]{\underset{#1 {\underbrace{#2}}}}
\newcommand{\brackets}[1]{\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\sqbrackets}[1]{\left[ #1\right]}
\newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\underSum}[1]{\underset{#1}{\sum}}
% Analysis commands
\newcommand{\diffBy}[1]{\frac{\partial}{\partial{#1}}}
\newcommand{\Sum}[2]{\overset{#2}{\underset{#1}{\sum}}}
%%% AAMAS-2024 copyright block (do not change!)
\setcopyright{ifaamas}
\acmConference[AAMAS '24]{Proc.\@ of the 23rd International Conference
on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2024)}{May 6 -- 10, 2024}
{Auckland, New Zealand}{N.~Alechina, V.~Dignum, M.~Dastani, J.S.~Sichman (eds.)}
\copyrightyear{2024}
\acmYear{2024}
\acmDOI{}
\acmPrice{}
\acmISBN{}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% == IMPORTANT ==
%%% Use this command to specify your EasyChair submission number.
%%% In anonymous mode, it will be printed on the first page.
\acmSubmissionID{<<EasyChair submission id>>}
%%% Use this command to specify the title of your paper.
\title{Optimizing Viscous Democracy}
\date{}
\author{Shiri Alouf-Heffetz}
\affiliation{
\institution{Ben-Gurion University}
\city{Beer Sheva}
\country{Israel}
}
\email{shirihe@post.bgu.ac.il}
\author{Ben Armstrong}
\affiliation{
\institution{University of Waterloo}
\city{Waterloo}
\country{Canada}
}
\email{ben.armstrong@uwaterloo.ca}
\author{Kate Larson}
\affiliation{
\institution{University of Waterloo}
\city{Waterloo}
\country{Canada}
}
\email{kate.larson@uwaterloo.ca}
\author{Nimrod Talmon}
\affiliation{
\institution{Ben-Gurion University}
\city{Beer Sheva}
\country{Israel}
}
\email{talmonn@bgu.ac.il}
\begin{document}
\begin{abstract}
%
% In modern democracies, the quest for improved decision-making processes has led to innovative approaches such as liquid democracy. Liquid democracy, a hybrid model that blends direct and representative democracy, has garnered attention due to its potential to enhance decision-making quality. This paper delves into the intricacies of liquid democracy, with a particular focus on one of its variants known as viscous democracy. Our investigation aims to elucidate the effects of the dampening parameter $\alpha$ on decision-making quality and other pertinent characteristics of the corresponding delegation graphs. By combining analytical and theoretical analyses with computer-based simulations, we aim at a deeper understanding of the behavior of viscous democracy; in particular, we study what affects the choice of an optimal dampening factor to be used.
We demonstrate that \textit{viscous democracy} is able to improve group decision-making ability in many settings. Viscous democracy is an extension of liquid democracy, a social choice framework in which voters may transitively delegate their votes. Viscous democracy introduces a mechanism to decrease a voter's delegated weight the more often it is delegated, thus reducing the risk that a voter's delegation will support a candidate the voter dislikes.
This paper demonstrates, for the first time we are aware of, that viscous democracy is able to improve group accuracy over basic liquid democracy in many ground-truth voting settings. We show a simple delegation graph structure in which group accuracy is increased by the introduction of viscosity. Subsequently, we explore several competence distributions and determine that there are many generalized settings where viscosity provides a benefit. We argue that viscosity should be included as a core component of liquid democracy in the future.
%
\end{abstract}
%%% Use this command to specify a few keywords describing your work.
%%% Keywords should be separated by commas.
\keywords{Viscous Democracy, Liquid Democracy, Networks}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
\ben{Set main version to main-aamas.tex}
Liquid democracy~\cite{blum2016liquid}, an evolving concept in democratic theory, seeks to address the limitations of traditional direct and representative democracy by enabling flexible delegation of voting power. In particular, in liquid democracy, individuals possess the dual capacity to cast their votes directly on issues or delegate their voting power to other voters that they specify. Importantly, and in contrast to simple proxy voting~\cite{green2015direct}, such delegations are transitive. By merging the strengths of direct participation and representative decision-making, liquid democracy has the potential -- already observed~\cite{alouf2022should} -- to enhance decision quality by incorporating diverse perspectives and informed opinions.
One notable variant of liquid democracy is viscous democracy~\cite{boldi2011viscous}, which introduces an intriguing dynamic into the decision-making process. In this variant, vote weights decrease exponentially as the chain of delegation lengthens. This ``viscosity'' in the computation of the vote weights as its roots in intuition regarding random walks and the PageRank algorithm~\cite{berkhin2005survey}; in a way, viscous democracy offers a compromise between the advantages of delegation and direct voting, potentially curbing excessive concentration of power while maintaining the fluidity of liquid democratic principles.
Assessing the quality of decisions made through viscous democracy requires a multifaceted analysis. A pivotal factor in this assessment is the dampening factor -- denoted by $\alpha$ -- which governs the rate of vote weight decay as delegation chains lengthen. As we show, the influence of $\alpha$ extends beyond decision quality, affecting the overall structure of delegation graphs that achieve high quality of the decision making. In our work, we seeks to unravel the intricate relationship between the value of $\alpha$ and the quality of decision making, as well as exploring how $\alpha$ shapes the topology of the delegation graphs. Understanding the interplay between $\alpha$ and these essential aspects is vital for comprehending the potential benefits and drawbacks of viscous democracy.
To comprehensively explore the implications of viscous democracy, we adopt a dual approach, employing both analytical and theoretical methodologies, as well as computer-based simulations. Theoretical analyses provide insights into the fundamental dynamics and properties of viscous democracy, shedding light on its theoretical underpinnings. Simulations, on the other hand, offer a tangible platform for observing the behavior of viscous democracy under varied conditions, facilitating a more realistic assessment of its outcomes and interactions. The combination of these approaches enriches our understanding of the complex interactions within the system of viscous democracy.
%
Finally, we aim at enabling tools that can set the correct realization of viscous democracy for different settings, adjusting the value of the dampening parameter $\alpha$ optimally as it depends on the specific properties of the setting at hand.
\section{Related Work}
By now, there is a quite big literature corpus on liquid democracy.
%
The corpus includes works that study liquid democracy from a political science perspective~\cite{blum2016liquid,paulin2020overview}; from an algorithmic point of view~\cite{kahng2021liquid,dey2021parameterized,caragiannis2019contribution}; from a game-theoretic point of view~\cite{zhang2021power,bloembergen2019rational,escoffier2019convergence}; and from an agenda aiming at pushing its boundaries by increasing the expressiveness power that is granted to voters~\cite{brill2018pairwise,jain2022preserving}.
Viscous democracy~\cite{boldi2011viscous} can be seen as a generalization of liquid democracy. In the paper that introduces viscous democracy~\cite{boldi2011viscous}, some intuition and the relation to PageRank is established; but no analysis regarding the effect of the value of the dampening factor is done, nor analysis regarding how to choose it. Viscous democracy was also used for a setting of group recommendation system~\cite{boldi2015liquid}.
In our work, we concentrate on the epistemic approach to social choice, in that we assume some ground truth of the decision to be made and we mainly evaluate the accuracy level of the voting system in revealing this ground truth. We mention work done from this point of view~\cite{alouf2022should}.
\section{Preliminaries}
We define viscous democracy (Section~\ref{section:viscousdemocracy}), the concept of delegation model (Section~\ref{section:delegationmodels}), and the epistemic approach applied for viscous democracy (Section~\ref{section:epistemicvoting}).
\subsection{Viscous Democracy}\label{section:viscousdemocracy}
The viscous democracy voting system can be described formally as follow:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
There is a set of agents $V$.
\item
There is a social network -- referred to also as the \emph{admissible delegations} graph -- where:
the agents $V$ are the nodes $V$ in the network: $G = \brackets{V, E}$;
and, the arcs in the network $E$ are those on which voters can choose their delegates -- a voter can either vote directly or delegate their vote to another voter, but only to a neighbor in $G$.
\item
In a specific election over $G$ each agent either decides to vote directly -- we consider only voting on a binary issue, so a direct vote is either $0$ or $1$ -- or to delegate their vote to a neighbor in $G$. This corresponds to a delegation graph, which is a directed graph with outdegree at most $1$.
\item
Following an intuition that long delegation chains shall have less effect --- due to issues of trust, alignment of preferences, and competence -- the following is the definition of voting weight and corresponds to the way delegations are counted:
given a delegation graph, the voting weight of each agent is proportional to the following equation:
\begin{equation}
score\brackets{i}\propto\sum_{p \in \operatorname{Path}(-, i)} \alpha^{|p|}
\end{equation}
(where $\operatorname{Path}\brackets{-, i}$ denotes all possible paths of delegations that reach $i$; and $\lvert p\rvert$ denotes the length of the path.)
\item
Importantly, note that $\alpha$ is a \textit{viscosity} factor (or, equivalently, the ``dampening factor'' parameter) that controls how much weight propagates along delegation chains.
%
(In particular, e.g., if $\alpha = 1$, then it gives a standard liquid democracy; while, $\alpha < 1$ causes far delegations to give less weight.)
\end{itemize}
% A notable effect of viscosity is that \textbf{delegation cycles become ``acceptable''} as a result of delegation weight degrading through the cycle and converging to a fixed point.
% Here the edges are delegations edges, using these we define a weight for each voter and use that for actual voting.
% A slightly more general version would allow voters to approve several voters and then the algorithm would choose which voter to delegate to in order to maximise the accuracy.
\subsection{Epistemic Voting}\label{section:epistemicvoting}
\label{section:viscousdemocracy}
We consider the ground-truth model of voting (i.e., the epistemic approach in social choice), as follows:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
As mentioned above, we consider voting on a binary issue where the possible options are $\{0, 1\}$.
\item
We assume, without loss of generality, that the correct option is $1$.
\item
For each agent we have a value $q \in [0, 1]$ -- referred to as her \emph{competence} -- indicating the probability that, when voting, the agent will vote correctly.
%
At times, we abuse notation and write $q_i$ to be the probability itself (thus, equating the voter with her competence).
\item
Practically, when a voter with competence $q$ votes directly, it is understood as if the voter throws a coin such that with probability $q$ she votes $1$ and with probability $1 - q$ she votes $0$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Choosing Delegates}\label{section:delegationmodels}
Given an admissible delegation graph, each agent may choose whether to vote directly or delegate their vote to a neighbor in the admissible delegation graph.
%
It is thus of interest to develop models -- and follow real-world data -- regarding how agents decide whether to vote directly or delegate their vote; and, if they delegate their vote, then how do they decide which neighbor to delegate their vote to.
Following the literature~\cite{alouf2022should}, we consider different approaches, modeling how agents make their corresponding choices. (Note that a \emph{nonactive} voter is a voter who delegates their vote.)
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
\textit{Liquid Better}:
%
For each nonactive voter $v_i$, one of their neighbors is selected uniformly at random, among the neighbors with higher competence than $v_i$. That is, $v_i$ delegates to a random voter from the set $N^{+}_G\brackets{i}$ where $N^{+}_G(i) = \left\{j\in V \mid (i,j)\in E\;, \; q_j > q_i \right\}$.
\item
\textit{Liquid Max}:
%
For each nonactive voter $v_i$, their delegate is their most competent neighbor.
\item The Wise Hermit - \shiri{Ben what was precisely the delegation mechanism we used in the simulated exmaples, a while ago ?}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{A Complete Example}
Consider the following example.
\begin{example}
%
Consider a social network where $G$ is a clique. Let the competence $q_i$ be sampled from $\calN\brackets{0.6,0.1}$, assume we have $N = 50$ voters, and $10\%$ are active voters aka gurus. In such a scenario using \textit{Liquid Max} would most likely form a dictator among the active voters. On the other hand, if we run random better, we would have to form majority among the active voters which in high probability is significantly better, due to a stochastic relaxation of Condorcet Jury Theorem.
%
\end{example}
\section{Models and Data}
Next we describe our data sources and our probabilistic models that generate admissible delegation graphs, competence distributions, and delegation graphs.
We define a graph generation model that is combination of Preferential attachment (see \cite{battiston2020networks}) model and reliance on the competence of the voters.
\begin{algorithm}
Competence Based Preferential Attachment (CBA)\label{alg:CBA}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State For each voter $v\in V$, with probability $p$ append $v$ to $\calA$ the set of active voters.
\State For each voter $v\in V$ sample independently competence $q_v\sim \calD$ from competence distribution $\calD$.
\State Initialise the set of relevant voters $S$,
$S \gets \calA$\;
\While {$S\neq V$}
\State Select a voter $v\in V\setminus S$ and \textbf{attach} it
to another voter $\hat{v}\in S$ with probability of attachment proportional to its competence $P\brackets{v, \hat{v}}\sim \frac{q_{\hat{v}}}{\Sum{u\in S}{}q_u}$.
\State Update: $S \gets S\cup \set{v}$.
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\nimrod{Here we shall add the data sources that we use as well as the descriptions of the probabilistic models that we use.}
\nimrod{One question is, indeed, whether we can (and want to) take real-world data..}
\subsection{Some Thoughts (Temporary Section)}
\nimrod{Here are some unsorted thoughts regarding the models; we should write several nice models instead.}
\nimrod{Shiri -- if we don't use these, then we can safely remove these..}
\begin{itemize}
\item
What more will be good to see is with the model of "Preferential Attachment with Competence"; think about the following: to generate a graph you select $k$ voters and let them be gurus where you sample their competence from some distribution. Then, for the remaining $n - k$ voters, you let them delegate to these gurus where the probability of such a voter to delegate to some guru is proportional to the competence of the guru.
\item
For this model, consider first the model of "PA with competence being $0.51$ for all the gurus": it seems possible to prove that, for this model, it is actually the best to have $\alpha = 0$; intuitively, this is because the weight of each guru will approach the most the optimal weight of guru (as defined by the $log(\frac{p_i}{1-p_i})$ formula).
\item
Perhaps the result is different for the model of "PA with competence being exp($\lambda$)"; here, intuitively, the competence of the gurus is with a long tail. Now, different values of $\alpha$ affect the expected weight that each guru gets, and, the optimal $\alpha$ is such that for which the expected weight of each guru is as close as possible to the value of the formula $log(\frac{p_i}{1-p_i})$; and, intuitively, for different values of $\lambda$ we will get different values of $\alpha$ that gives the optimal.
\item
Here is a nice definition of a probabilistic model for generating competence-delegation-graphs: it is called $CBA(p, C)$; to generate a graph you do like this, for $n$ iterations, in each iteration you add one voter; now, in iteration $i$ you make the voter be a guru with probability $p$, in which case its competence is sampled from $C$; and with probability $1 - p$ you make him to delegate, in which case you select her guru with probability proportional to the competence of the guru.
\item
\shiri{The BA version}
Roll with probability $p$ and probability $1-p$ which voters would be \textit{active} and which ones would be delegate their vote. After fixing the set of active voters. Iterate over the set of delegators one by one and attach it to one of the other voter with probability proportional to the node degree. It is important to note that after we attach a delegator to the active component the next voter can delegate to one of the voters delegating and not just the active voters.
\item
Now, for each $CBA(p, C)$ you get the $opt_\alpha$ for this model (generally speaking, for a model $M$, $opt_\alpha(M)$ is the alpha that gives the optimal accuracy for graphs created by $M$); now, let's draw plots for different values of $p$ and $C$ for $opt_\alpha(CBA(p, C))$ (above we said, e.g., that $opt_\alpha(CBA(k / n, unif(0.51)))$ seems to be equal to $0$). ($x$ axis is the $alpha$ and $y$ axis is the accuracy you get; and we have a plot for each $M$; for $M = CBA(k / n, unif(0.51))$ the plot should be monotonically decreasing).
\item
Then, let's draw a plot with x axis being $lambda$ and y axis being this: $opt_\alpha(CBA(0.6, exp(lambda)))$; I hope/guess that this will be something interesting (again, from the intuition that it is the best to approach the $p_i / log(p_i)$ formula).
\end{itemize}
\section{Results}
We describe our results.
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
First, we analyze the effect of $\alpha$ on the power structure in the delegation graphs.
\item
Then, we analyze the effect of $\alpha$ on the length of the chains in optimal delegation graphs.
\item
Then, we analyze the effect of $\alpha$ on the accuracy.
\item
Finally, building upon our data exploration and structural observations as described above, we aim at producing explainable regression models that, given an admissible delegation graph, a competence distribution, and a mode of delegation, predict the value of $\alpha$ that is expected to maximize the accuracy.
\end{itemize}
\section{Viscosity Affects Accuracy}
Here we concentrate on how the damping factor affects the accuracy of the outcome.
%
The intuition goes both ways in the extreme when $alpha = 0$ we have direct democracy, since delegating essentially siappates the votes. On the other hand, $alpha=1$, means we are dealing with standard liquid democracy. Here the tension could be crystallised to the variance of the votes that will be casted correctly and the expected value. Changing the value of $alpha$ affects which coalitions would have majority and therefore counted for the group probability of selecting the right outcome. Succinctly put if we have sufficient independent components of votes, we can benefit from boosting the average individual accuracy while not degrading the overall probability due to too much correlation of the votes. On the other hand,
if we have a dominant component that has more then half the votes, lowering alpha would allow other components to affect the outcome and therefore increase the group accuracy.
\subsection{Theoretical Analysis}
Below we provide a theoretical analysis regarding the effect of viscosity on the accuracy. First, we provide one example for which increasing $\alpha$ increases the accuracy as well as one example for the opposite phenomenon.
\subsubsection{Increasing alpha increases the accuracy}
\begin{example}\label{ex: monotone 3 active voters}
Consider 3 chains of voters, we have two active voters $q_B=q_C=0.4$, each with weight 2. The third active voter $q_A = 0.9$, has a chain of 5 players, so setting $alpha=1$ would mean that the outcome is solely dependent on $A$'s vote that is $p_{vc}=q_A=0.9$, where as for the original $alpha = 0.2$,
$w_A \approx 1.25$, the overall group accuracy is $p_{vc} = 0.756$ (choosing any subset of two or more of these active voters). So changing $\alpha = 0.2 \rightarrow 1$ would increase the viscous accuracy from $0.756 \rightarrow\;0.9$.
\end{example}
\subsubsection{Increasing alpha decreases accuracy}
We introduce a counter intuitive example showing increasing value of $\alpha$ is not always positive.
\begin{example}\label{ex: non-monotone 3 active nodes}
%
Consider three independent chains of voters of lengths 5,2,2 denote the active voters at the end of these chains as $A,B,C$ of the first one with length 5, such that $q_A = 0.9$, $q_B=q_C=0.8$ then the weight of A under viscous democracy is $w_A=\Sum{i=0}{4} \alpha^i$, where as for $B,C$ it is $w_B=w_C=1+\alpha$.
%
We have two cases:
%
\begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*)]
\item $w_A > w_B + w_C$, then the outcome is up to $A$'s vote, $P_{vd}=0.9$
\item $w_A \leq w_B + w_C$, here any two out of the three voters would be sufficient for majority, $P_{vd} = 0.928$
\end{enumerate}
%
For the (i) condition to hold we need $\alpha > 0.848$. hence if we initially had a value of $\alpha = 0.7$ moving it up to $\alpha = 0.9$ is actually a reduction in group accuracy.
\\
\begin{tikzpicture}[
roundnode/.style={circle, draw=blue!60, fill=blue!5, very thick, minimum size=5mm},
squarednode/.style={rectangle, draw=red!60, fill=red!5, very thick, minimum size=5mm},
]
% \draw (-1,0) -- (0,0) -- (1,0);
%nodes
% First chain
\node[roundnode] (a1) {};
\node[roundnode] (a2)[right=of a1] {} ;
\node[roundnode] (a3)[right= of a2] {} ;
\node[roundnode] (a4)[right= of a3] {}
;
\node[squarednode, label=below:0.9] (A) [right= of a4] {A} ;
% Second chain
\node[roundnode](b1)[below= of a3]{};
\node[squarednode, label=below:0.8] [right= of b1] (B){B};
% Third chain
\node[roundnode][below= of b1](c1){};
\node[squarednode, label=below:0.8][right= of c1](C){C};
%Lines
\draw[->] (a1) -- (a2) -- (a3) -- (a4) -- (A);
\draw[->] (b1) -- (B);
\draw[->] (c1) -- (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{observation}
%
If we consider the same example just that $w_A = n',\; n' = n-4$ we have a limit for the threshold of choosing appropriate alpha.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\underset{n'\rightarrow\infty}{lim}\Sum{i=0}{n'}\alpha^i - 2\alpha -2 &=0 \\
\frac{1}{1-\alpha} - 2\alpha -2 &= 0, \; 0<\alpha<1 \\
2\brackets{1-\alpha^2}&=1 \\
\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &\approx 0.707
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Here we note that the example can be generalised $n$ delegates in the first chain such that the threshold for $alpha$ would get lower each time converging to $\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ from the top.
%
\end{observation}
\end{example}
\begin{comment}
\begin{example}
We can generalise that to $p_A = \beta, \beta > 0.5$
if we assume $B,C$ have the same probability $x$ and weight such that two out of the three is enough for majority then we can consider the polynomial that represents the difference between the two events taking place as $f\brackets{x} = \brackets{1 - 2\beta}x^2 + 2 \beta x - \beta$
\end{example}
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{More Theory}
\nimrod{Here is one idea: we may generalize the example above and then, it will be nice to have a proof for some family of graphs for which always increasing $\alpha$ helps; and another family for which we can prove that always decreasing $\alpha$ helps..}
\subsection{Generalized Example and Speculation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/interesting_alpha_example.png}
\caption{Example of settings where optimal alpha occurs at a non-extreme value.}
\label{fig:interesting_alpha}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:interesting_alpha} shows a family where non extreme alpha is optimal. It \textit{appears} that the following setting is sufficient for optimal $\alpha$ in $(0, 1)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $s$ identical small components, each with competence $s_{comp}$ and $d$ direct delegators for a total weight of $d+1$.
\item $l$ identical large components, each with competence $l_{comp}$ and $s(d+1)$ delegators arranged in a chain for a total weight of $sd + s + 1$.
\item Each large component has more weight by itself than all small components combined.
\item If Acc(all large components) $< s_{comp}$ then $0 < \alpha < 1$ leads to optimal group accuracy.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Simulation-based Analysis}
Next, we report on simulations regarding the effect of viscosity on accuracy.
\nimrod{we should find nice examples/models for which we get interesting things (in particular, that viscous democracy sometimes helps).}
\begin{itemize}
\item
On Figure~\ref{fig:viscousity-accuracy} we see results for Erdos Renyi graphs with uniform and Gaussian competence distributions.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/er-viscous-accuracy.png}
\caption{Accuracy of a few competence distributions with mean of 0.5 on an Erdos Renyi network with attachment probability of 0.2 with 500 voters.}
\label{fig:viscousity-accuracy}
\end{figure}
\nimrod{We have to find probabilistic models of graphs (and settings) for which indeed it is better to use viscous democracy (i.e., that the graphs are not monotonically increasing).}
\section{The Effect of Viscosity on Optimal Graphs}
Next we consider the effect of viscosity -- and, in particular, the dampening factor $\alpha$ -- on the computation of optimal delegation graphs as well as on the structure of these graphs. (From all possible delegation graphs of an admissible delegation graph, the \emph{optimal} delegation graph is the one that maximizes the expected accuracy.)
First, we consider the computational complexity of computing such optimal delegation graphs; then, we consider their structure.
\subsection{Computing Optimal Delegation Graphs}
Here we are interested in the problem of computing optimal delegation graphs. More formally, consider the following problem: Given a graph, we look for the delegation graph that is a subgraph of the graph that maximizes the accuracy.
\begin{definition}
%
In the \textsc{Optimal Delegation Graph} (ODG) problem we are given a competence graph and the task is to find a delegation graph in the competence graph that maximizes the accuracy.
%
\end{definition}
For $\alpha = 1$ we know that ODG is NP-hard.
%
This follows from the work of Caragiannis et al.~\cite{caragiannis2019contribution}
(they consider liquid democracy -- i.e., the case with $\alpha = 1$).
\begin{corollary}
For $\alpha = 1$, ODG is NP-hard.
It is also NP-Hard to approximate to within a factor of $\nicefrac{1}{16}$.
\end{corollary}
For the case of $\alpha = 0$, however, we have polytime.
\begin{theorem}
For $\alpha = 0$, ODG is polytime.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
%
Observe that, for $\alpha = 0$, setting a voter to delegate to some other voter in effect removes that voter. Thus, to solve ODG we can iterate over $k \in [n]$, which is the number of voters to remove. In particular, for each $k \in [n]$, look for the $k$ voters with the lowest accuracy and remove them (e.g., make them a delegation cycle). Now, compute the accuracy (this can be done in polytime using dynamic programming~\cite{Becker2021}). Finally, select the $k$ for which the accuracy is the highest.
%
\end{proof}
\subsection{Chain Length Distribution in Optimal Delegation Graphs}
Here we explore the effect of viscosity on the average length of the delegation chains in the optimal delegation graphs (as found by simulated annealing).
\subsubsection{Theoretical Analysis}
\nimrod{Hmm.. Do we have some theoretical stuff to say here?}
\subsubsection{Simulation-based Analysis}
Note that, as computing optimal delegation graphs is NP-hard, we use a simulated annealing on the solution space to discover highly accurate approximations. And, we observe the relationship between the value of $\alpha$ to the length of the delegation chain.
\nimrod{a nice story is this: we (the system) can control the $\alpha$; if we assume that the community (dynamics) will eventually reach a delegation graph that is not too far away from optimal delegation then we are interested in seeing how optimal delegation graphs look like for different values of $\alpha$; for this, we run SA on different values of $\alpha$ and look at the optimal delegation graphs that we get (with SA -- so approximated optimal delegation graphs, but very good approximations); in particular, we consider the length of the chains as, intuitively, they should look different.}
\todo{insert a proper figure with the different parameters}
\todo{regenerate data as $num\_gurus = 1$ for all iterations}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/delegation_chains.png}
\caption{length of delegation chain as a function of alpha}
\label{fig:chains-exponential}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/avg_chain_length_gaussian.png}
\caption{Gaussian distribution of the competence, observe the avg chain length}
\label{fig:chains-exponentialtwo}
\end{figure}
\section{Outlook}
\begin{itemize}
\item
One possible nice direction to do is to try to fit our probabilistic models to real-world data.
\item
We are in the quest for a (hopefully nicely-parameterized in a controlled-way) distribution/family of delegation graphs for which optimal alpha is something in the middle..
\item
We are also interested in developing an ML model that takes a setting and outputs the optimal alpha:
For example, perhaps we can do as follows: We take the input graph; we find the closest graph $G'$ to it that is a "Disjoint Path Star Decomposable Graphs"; then we look at the parameters of $G'$ and we know what alpha is best!
\end{itemize}
\pagebreak
\ \\
\pagebreak
\section{MORE STUFF BELOW}
\subsection{Questions of Focus}
\subsubsection{General Question}
Given a graph structure, competency distribution, and delegation mechanism what is the optimal $\alpha$?
\subsubsection{More Easily Answered Questions}
\begin{itemize}
\item How does coalition structure affect optimal $\alpha$?
In the example below, $\alpha$ doesn't directly affect accuracy but changes the relative power of coalitions based on their structures (e.g. coalitions with members connected via long chains are hurt more from reducing $\alpha$.)
\item Are there other examples where $\alpha < 1$ maximizes group accuracy? What are the commonalities between any such examples?
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/ternary_max_weight.png}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/ternary_min_weight.png}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/ternary_weight_difference.png}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{(a)}Max and \textbf{(b)}Min coalition weights while varying coalition size, weight of heaviest voter, and alpha. \textbf{(c)} Difference between Max and Min coalition weights. Images give some intuition as to how much various values of $\alpha$ might affect the weight of a coalition, and thus (indirectly) the outcome of the election.}
\label{fig:pivotal_voter_diagrams}
\end{figure}
\section{Future/Current Ideas}
\subsection{The budget idea}
\nimrod{This section should be transformed into its own paper; starting without alpha and then possibly adding stuff.}
We consider a setting where acquiring information for an agent on his surrounding has a cost. For instance we have a function $\theta : N \times N \rightarrow \left[0,1\right]$ that for each call would answer what is the marginal difference between an agent $i$ to his neighbour $j$. Let's say the cost for each call of this function is fixed to be 1.
A difference formulation would be different actions for a voter incur different amount of attention : that using 'random-better' costs $\frac{1}{4}$, 'max' costs $\frac{1}{2}$ and voting directly costs 1.
\nimrod{better to formulate: an instance is with $n$ voters with their competence and a number $B$ that is our budget -- where it costs $0$ to not show up for the election -- and now we ask what is the best that we can do.. (Note that, at most we can have $B$-many gurus.) (then, later, we can generalize to any $\alpha$.}
A simplified problem, would be how to select the following :
\begin{problem}
Consider an instance $\left<G, q, g, \alpha\right>$ the goal is to output a choice of of $\frac{n-g}{2}$ delegators to use random better, and $\frac{n-g}{2}$ to use 'max' such that we maximise $P_{vc}$
\end{problem}
In this formulation $g$ is the number of fixed gurus in the instance of $G$. A-priori there are $\binom{s}{\frac{s}{2}}, s = n-g$
\paragraph{Implementation Line} Here we would like to have the ability to run over all such subset selections such that we maximise the probability of retrieving the right outcome. We would like to compare that to the heuristic of simply choosing the top $\frac{s}{2}$ voters based on their connectivity score in the graph $G$.
\balance
\section{More Experimental Results}
\subsection{Greedy-vs-cooling in annealing}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/greedy-cooling.png}
\caption{Plotting Greedy-vs-cooling competencies are sampled from uniform, with 20\% gurus with 100 voters}
\label{fig:greedy-vs-cooling}
\end{figure}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\bibliography{bibliography}
\end{document}
\documentclass[sigconf,anonymous]{aamas}
% For the anonymous version
%\documentclass[sigconf,anonymous]{aamas}
%% Packages %%
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{comment}
% \usepackage{algpseudocode}
% \usepackage{algorithmicx}
% \newtheorem{algorithm}{Algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{balance}
\newcommand{\shiri}[1]{{\color{blue}{Shiri says: #1}}}
\newcommand{\ben}[1]{{\color{teal}{Ben says: #1}}}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\nimrod}[1]{\textcolor{purple}{Nimrod: #1}}
% \newcommand\todo[1]{\textcolor{red}{TODO: #1}}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{subcaption}
%quotation packages.
\usepackage{quoting}
\usepackage{epigraph}
%To do notes package.
\usepackage{todonotes}
\usepackage{comment}
\newcommand{\insertref}[1]{\todo[color=green!40]{#1}}
\newcommand{\explainindetail}[1]{\todo[color=red!40]{#1}}
\newcommand{\missingProof}[1]{\todo[color=blue!40]{#1}}
%Graphics and images
\usepackage{graphicx}
%Creating graphs
\usepackage{tikz}
%Logical Postulations
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{observation}{Observation}
\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newtheorem{proclamation}{Proclamation}
\newtheorem{problem}{Problem}
\newcommand{\algorithmautorefname}{Algorithm}
\newcommand{\lemmaautorefname}{Lemma}
\renewcommand{\sectionautorefname}{Section}
\newcommand{\argmin}{\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}}
\newcommand{\argmax}{\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}}
\newcommand{\calR}{\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\calCS}{\mathcal{CS}}
\newcommand{\calH}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\calN}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\calA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\V}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\calS}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\calL}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\calP}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\calM}{\mathcal{M}}
\newcommand{\calC}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\calD}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\calU}{\mathcal{U}}
\newcommand{\calF}{\mathcal{F}}
%logical deductions commands.
\newcommand{\underClasue}[2]{\underset{#1 {\underbrace{#2}}}}
\newcommand{\brackets}[1]{\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\sqbrackets}[1]{\left[ #1\right]}
\newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\underSum}[1]{\underset{#1}{\sum}}
% Analysis commands
\newcommand{\diffBy}[1]{\frac{\partial}{\partial{#1}}}
\newcommand{\Sum}[2]{\overset{#2}{\underset{#1}{\sum}}}
%%% AAMAS-2024 copyright block (do not change!)
\setcopyright{ifaamas}
\acmConference[AAMAS '24]{Proc.\@ of the 23rd International Conference
on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2024)}{May 6 -- 10, 2024}
{Auckland, New Zealand}{N.~Alechina, V.~Dignum, M.~Dastani, J.S.~Sichman (eds.)}
\copyrightyear{2024}
\acmYear{2024}
\acmDOI{}
\acmPrice{}
\acmISBN{}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% == IMPORTANT ==
%%% Use this command to specify your EasyChair submission number.
%%% In anonymous mode, it will be printed on the first page.
\acmSubmissionID{825}
%%% Use this command to specify the title of your paper.
\title{Optimizing Viscous Democracy}
\date{}
\author{Shiri Alouf-Heffetz}
\affiliation{
\institution{Ben-Gurion University}
\city{Beer Sheva}
\country{Israel}
}
\email{shirihe@post.bgu.ac.il}
\author{Ben Armstrong}
\affiliation{
\institution{University of Waterloo}
\city{Waterloo}
\country{Canada}
}
\email{ben.armstrong@uwaterloo.ca}
\author{Nimrod Talmon}
\affiliation{
\institution{Ben-Gurion University}
\city{Beer Sheva}
\country{Israel}
}
\email{talmonn@bgu.ac.il}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
%
% In modern democracies, the quest for improved decision-making processes has led to innovative approaches such as liquid democracy. Liquid democracy, a hybrid model that blends direct and representative democracy, has garnered attention due to its potential to enhance decision-making quality. This paper delves into the intricacies of liquid democracy, with a particular focus on one of its variants known as viscous democracy. Our investigation aims to elucidate the effects of the dampening parameter $\alpha$ on decision-making quality and other pertinent characteristics of the corresponding delegation graphs. By combining analytical and theoretical analyses with computer-based simulations, we aim at a deeper understanding of the behavior of viscous democracy; in particular, we study what affects the choice of an optimal dampening factor to be used.
\emph{Viscous democracy} is a generalization of liquid democracy, a social choice framework in which voters may transitively delegate their votes; in particular, viscous democracy introduces a ``viscous'' mechanism to decrease a voter's delegated weight the farther away it is eventually delegated. This follows the intuition of vote similarity being related to distance and, thus, potentially reduces the risk that a voter's delegation will support a candidate the voter dislikes.
We demonstrate that \textit{viscous democracy} is able to improve group decision-making ability in many settings. In particular, we show that viscous democracy is able to improve group accuracy over basic liquid democracy in many ground-truth voting settings; in particular, we show a simple delegation graph structure in which group accuracy is increased by the introduction of viscosity. Subsequently, we explore several classes of delegation graphs that differ also by the assumed competence of voters in these ground-truth settings and demonstrate many generalized settings where adding viscosity is beneficial; and we shed light on the structural properties of graphs as they affect how beneficial viscosity can be. We thus argue that viscosity should be considered as a core component of liquid democracy; and that, in particular, when selecting a delegation-based voting system the degree of viscosity shall be considered and chosen appropriately.
%
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
Liquid democracy~\cite{blum2016liquid}, an evolving concept in democratic theory, seeks to address the limitations of traditional direct and representative democracy by enabling flexible delegation of voting power. In particular, in liquid democracy, individuals possess the dual capacity to cast their votes directly on issues or delegate their voting power to other voters that they specify. Importantly, and in contrast to simple proxy voting~\cite{green2015direct}, such delegations are transitive. By merging the strengths of direct participation and representative decision-making, liquid democracy has the potential -- already observed~\cite{alouf2022should} -- to enhance decision quality by incorporating diverse perspectives and informed opinions.
One notable variant of liquid democracy is viscous democracy~\cite{boldi2011viscous}, which introduces an intriguing dynamic into the decision-making process. In this variant, vote weights decrease exponentially as the chain of delegation lengthens. This ``viscosity'' in the computation of the vote weights has its roots in random walks and the PageRank algorithm~\cite{berkhin2005survey}; in a way, viscous democracy offers a compromise between the advantages of delegation and direct voting, potentially curbing excessive concentration of power while maintaining the fluidity of liquid democratic principles.
Assessing the quality of decisions made through viscous democracy requires a multifaceted analysis. A pivotal factor in this assessment is the dampening factor -- denoted by $\alpha$ -- which governs the rate of vote weight decay as delegation chains lengthen. As we show, the influence of $\alpha$ extends beyond decision quality, affecting the overall structure of delegation graphs that achieve a high quality of decision making. In this work, we seek to unravel the intricate relationship between the value of $\alpha$ and the quality of decision making, as well as exploring how $\alpha$ shapes the topology of the optimal delegation graphs. Understanding the interplay between $\alpha$ and these essential aspects is vital for comprehending the potential benefits and drawbacks of viscous democracy.
To comprehensively explore the implications of viscous democracy, we adopt a dual approach, employing both analytical and theoretical methodologies, as well as computer-based simulations. Theoretical analyses provide insights into the fundamental dynamics and properties of viscous democracy, shedding light on its theoretical underpinnings. Simulations, on the other hand, offer a tangible platform for observing the behavior of viscous democracy under varied conditions, facilitating a more realistic assessment of its outcomes and interactions. The combination of these approaches enriches our understanding of the complex interactions within the system of viscous democracy.
%
Finally, we aim at enabling tools that can set the correct realization of viscous democracy for different settings, adjusting the value of the dampening parameter $\alpha$ optimally as it depends on the specific properties of the setting at hand.
\nimrod{Hi, somehow our sole consideration of an epistemic setting perhaps hurts us. In particular, we "promise" that we check "the effect of specific value of viscosity on the quality of decision making" but we show this only in an epistemic setting. So, I have a suggestion: to have results that are strong with respect to the story that we want to tell, we can do also with “political stance”: say, each node/voter has (position, competence), where position is the “real” position (say, between 0 and 1), and competence is the “error” (say, between 0 and 1; where competence c means uniform error “1 - c” around the real position). With this model, we can answer the sentence in the abstract, that “the farther the delegation path, the less vote similarity should be..” and this is easy to check when generating, say, a delegation graph where the “position” somehow corresponds to the “position” in the graph.}
\shiri{This is a nice comment in terms of an idea and might be relevant to a different paper, since all of our results and models have been designed for epistemic setting.}
\nimrod{Hmm.. Well, we still can decide to add this to the current paper, as it shouldn't be *that* much extra work I think. Otherwise, let's put it in the outlook then..}
\subsection{Related Work}
By now, there is a large corpus of literature on liquid democracy.
%
This includes works that study liquid democracy from a political science perspective~\cite{blum2016liquid,paulin2020overview}; from an algorithmic point of view~\cite{kahng2021liquid,dey2021parameterized,caragiannis2019contribution}; from a game-theoretic point of view~\cite{zhang2021power,bloembergen2019rational,escoffier2019convergence}; and from an agenda aiming at pushing its boundaries by increasing the expressiveness power that is granted to voters~\cite{brill2018pairwise,jain2022preserving}.
Viscous democracy~\cite{boldi2011viscous} can be seen as a generalization of liquid democracy. In the paper that introduces viscous democracy~\cite{boldi2011viscous}, some intuition and the relation to PageRank is established; but no analysis regarding the effect of the value of the dampening factor is done, nor analysis regarding how to choose it. Viscous democracy was also used for a setting of group recommendation system~\cite{boldi2015liquid}.
In our work, we concentrate on the epistemic approach to social choice, in that we assume some ground truth of the decision to be made and we mainly evaluate the accuracy level of the voting system in revealing this ground truth. We mention work done from this point of view~\cite{alouf2022should}.
\section{Formal Model}
Next, we describe our formal model.
\subsection{Delegation Graphs}
In particular, we adopt a basic epistemic social choice setting with $n$ voters, $V = \{v_1, \ldots, v_n\}$, and two alternatives $A = \{a^+, a^-\}$. We assume that $a^+$ is an objectively correct outcome that all voters collectively aim to elect. Each voter $v_i \in V$ has a competency level $q_i \in Q$ in the range $[0, 1]$ that corresponds to the probability that $v_i$ would vote ``correctly'' (i.e., would vote for $a^+$). Voters are connected via an underlying social network $G = (V, E)$ with a set of undirected edges $E$ representing the connections between voters (where delegations can occur as direct arcs only along these connections).
Our model utilizes the viscous generalization of liquid democracy, a system of transitive delegations with vote weight decreasing as the length of the delegation chain increases. Each voter $v_i$ is able to perform one of two actions: They may vote directly, as above -- supporting $a^+$ with probability $q_i$, or they may delegate their vote to a voter in their set of neighbours, $N_G(i) = \{j \in V | (i, j) \in E\}$. If a voter votes directly, we refer to them as a \textit{guru} and model them as delegating to themselves.
A delegation function $d: V \rightarrow V$ gives the delegation of each voter. $d(v_i) = v_j$ indicates that $v_i$ delegates to $v_j$. Delegation applies transitively so that a delegation might ``travel'' several hops before reaching a guru. $d^*(v_i)$ refers to the repeated application of $d(v_i)$ until a self-delegation (i.e. a guru) is reached. The guru of $v_i$ is $d^*(v_i)$ and denote the set of all gurus as $\mathcal{G}(V)$. We disallow any delegation that would result in a cycle. This is done to prevent loss of votes, within the voting process.
Note that a delegation function induces a directed subgraph of~$G$ containing (directed versions of the) edges in $E$ only when a delegation flows between the two nodes of an edge. We call this a \textit{delegation graph} of $G$, denoted $D = (V, \{(i, j) \in E | d(i) = j \})$. A delegation graph can be conceived of as a forest of directed trees, where all edges in each tree flow towards the singular guru in that tree.
\subsection{Vote Weights}
In ``traditional'' liquid democracy, the weight of each guru is equal to the number of delegations it receives, either directly or indirectly. This paper builds upon a model introduced by \citeauthor{boldi2011viscous} referred to as \textit{viscous democracy} \cite{boldi2011viscous}. Each edge that a delegation travels reduces its weight by a constant dampening factor $\alpha \in [0, 1]$, also referred to as the viscosity. Thus, the weight of each voter $v_i$ is,
\[
w_{i} =
\begin{cases}
% 0 & \text{if } d^*(v_i) \neq v_i \\
0 & \text{if } v_i \notin \mathcal{G}(V) \\
\sum_{p \in \operatorname{Path}(-, i)} \alpha^{|p|} & \text{otherwise }
\end{cases}
\]
where $\operatorname{Path}\brackets{-, i}$ denotes all paths of delegations that reach $v_i$.
%
Note the following:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
When $\alpha = 1$, viscous democracy boils down to the standard liquid democracy setting .
\item
At lower values of $\alpha$, guru weights change based upon the structure of the delegation graph, where the weight of voters that are farther away from their guru decrease.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Group Accuracy}
As there are only two alternatives, we use weighted plurality voting to determine the winner of an election. Specifically, each guru selects one alternative, based upon their competence, and commits all of their weight to supporting that alternative. The alternative receiving the most total weight is the winner. The probability that~$a^+$ will be selected as the winner is referred to as \textit{group accuracy}, or, simply \textit{accuracy}.
Accuracy is a function of delegations and voter competencies but is also affected by $\alpha$. We refer to the value of $\alpha$ that maximizes group accuracy as $\alpha^*$; analyzing this value is a major focus of this paper: essentially, given a specific setting of a delegation graph, we are interested in evaluating the ``optimal'' value of viscosity.
We can now formally specify an \textit{election} by either of two equivalent forms: (1) $\mathbb{E} = (Q, G, d)$ a combination of voter competencies, an underlying social network, and a delegation function which may be used to determine a delegation graph $D$, or (2) $\mathbb{E} = (Q, D)$ consisting of voter competencies and an already existing delegation graph. \nimrod{I don't understand this last paragraph: not what it tries to say, and not why.. Can you please explain?}
\begin{comment}
We define viscous democracy (Section~\ref{section:viscousdemocracy}), the concept of delegation model (Section~\ref{section:delegation_models}), and the epistemic approach applied for viscous democracy (Section~\ref{section:epistemicvoting}).
\subsection{Viscous Democracy}
\label{section:viscousdemocracy}
The voting system of viscous democracy can be described formally as follows:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
There is a set of agents $V$.
\item
There is a social network -- referred to also as the \emph{admissible delegations} graph -- where:
the agents $V$ are the nodes $V$ in the network: $G = \brackets{V, E}$;
and, the arcs in the network $E$ are those on which voters can choose their delegates -- a voter can either vote directly or delegate their vote to another voter, but only to a neighbor in $G$.
\item
In a specific election over $G$ each agent either decides to vote directly -- we consider only voting on a binary issue, so a direct vote is either $0$ or $1$ -- or to delegate their vote to a neighbor in $G$. This corresponds to a delegation graph, which is a directed graph with outdegree at most $1$.
\item
Following an intuition that long delegation chains shall have less effect --- due to issues of trust, alignment of preferences, and competence -- the following is the definition of voting weight and corresponds to the way delegations are counted:
given a delegation graph, the voting weight of each agent is proportional to the following equation:
\begin{equation}
score\brackets{i}\propto\sum_{p \in \operatorname{Path}(-, i)} \alpha^{|p|}
\end{equation}
(where $\operatorname{Path}\brackets{-, i}$ denotes all possible paths of delegations that reach $i$; and $\lvert p\rvert$ denotes the length of the path.) We also denote it with $w_i$.
\item
Importantly, note that $\alpha$ is a \textit{viscosity} factor (or, equivalently, the ``dampening factor'' parameter) that controls how much weight propagates along delegation chains.
%
(In particular, e.g., if $\alpha = 1$, then it gives a standard liquid democracy; while, $\alpha < 1$ causes far delegations to give less weight.)
\item We denote with $d^{*}\brackets{j}$ - the voter that $j$'s vote transitively ends up with.
\end{itemize}
% A notable effect of viscosity is that \textbf{delegation cycles become ``acceptable''} as a result of delegation weight degrading through the cycle and converging to a fixed point.
% Here the edges are delegations edges, using these we define a weight for each voter and use that for actual voting.
% A slightly more general version would allow voters to approve several voters and then the algorithm would choose which voter to delegate to in order to maximise the accuracy.
\subsection{Epistemic Voting}
\label{section:epistemicvoting}
We consider the ground-truth model of voting (i.e., the epistemic approach in social choice), which we formally define as follows:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
As mentioned above, we consider voting on a binary issue where the possible options are $\{0, 1\}$.
\item
We assume, without loss of generality, that the correct option is $1$.
\item
For each agent we have a value $q \in [0, 1]$ -- referred to as her \emph{competence} -- indicating the probability that, when voting, the agent will vote correctly.
%
At times, we abuse notation and write $q_i$ to be the probability itself (thus, equating the voter with her competence).
\item
Practically, when a voter with competence $q$ votes directly, it is understood as if the voter throws a coin such that with probability $q$ she votes $1$ and with probability $1 - q$ she votes~$0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{comment}
% Our model requires setting voter competences, an underlying social network, and either a delegation method to create a delegation graph based on the underlying network or a fixed delegation graph. Here we describe the variety of values for these parameters that we explore.
\section{Families of Delegation Graphs}
Throughout the paper, we use different families of delegation graphs. Next, we explain the different families we use; we split the description by first speaking about the topology of the networks we consider, then about the different competence distributions, and then about how we construct delegation graphs using delegation functions.
\subsection{Social Networks}
\ben{Make sure we do actually use real networks at some point.}
Throughout our experiments we explore two types of underlying social networks $G$ that voters exist upon; we use both empirical and artificially-generated networks. Empirical networks are taken from \textit{SNAP} \cite{snapnets}. To generate artificial networks ones we use two well-studied probabilistic models that are often used to replicate properties of real-world social networks~\cite{Kleinberg-networks-book}:
%
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\emph{Erdős–Rényi (ER)}:
%
ER networks are parameterized by two parameters --- the number of nodes (voters) $n$ and the connection probability $p$ --- and are generated by initializing an empty network of $n$ nodes and independently inserting each possible edge with the fixed connection probability $p$ ~\cite{erdos1960evolution};
and
\item
\emph{Barabási–Albert (BA)}: BA networks are parameterized by two parameters; the number of nodes (voters) $n$, and an connection amount $m$. They are generated via a preferential attachment process beginning with $m$ fully connected nodes and adding nodes one at a time, connecting them to $m$ existing nodes where the probability of attachment is proportional to the existing node's degree~\cite{albert2002statistical}.
\end{enumerate}
% We also consider two methods of generating a delegation graph, described in \autoref{sec:delegation}.
\subsection{Competence Distributions}
We are interested in the effects of different voter competence distributions in our experiments.
%
Specifically, for each experiment we select a single probability distribution $\mathcal{D}$ from which we draw voter competencies, so that for each $v_i \in V$ we independently sample a value $q_i \sim \mathcal{D}$. We consider the following families of distributions:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
uniform distributions;
\item
truncated normal distributions;\footnote{We use the SciPy implementation of the truncated normal distribution \cite{burkardt2014truncated}.} and
\item
truncated exponential distributions.\footnote{Since the exponential distribution does not provide an upper bound on sampled values whenever we sample a competency value greater than $1$ we map the value to $1$. This leads to a mean value slightly lower than the original distribution, i.e $\mu' = \frac{1}{\lambda} - \frac{e^{-\lambda}}{\lambda}$.}
\end{itemize}
\nimrod{Reading this section it is visible to me (and, thus, possibly also to reviewers) that we do *not* consider competence distributions that rely on the topology of the network: I'm thinking about something like, say, that the competence we draw for a voter depends on his degree -- the higher the degree the higher the expected competence (or the opposite, say).}
\shiri{Yes, that is fair point we have not used that direction yet.. }
\nimrod{So, shall we?}
\subsection{Delegation Functions}
Here we describe methods that we use that take a social network and the competences already-assigned to all voters, and ``decide'' for each voter whether she will delegate or vote directly; and, if the voter delegates, we also ``decide'' to who she delegates.
That is, when making delegations, voters must decide who to delegate. We define delegation probability functions $p(v_i, v_j)$ as giving the probability that $v_i$ will delegate to $v_j$. A delegation function $d$ specifies a delegate for each voter based upon $p(v_i, v_j)$.
We introduce several, concrete delegation probability functions:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
\textbf{Max}:
%
Each delegating voter $v_i$ delegates to their most competent neighbour.
\[
p^\text{max}(v_i, v_j) = \begin{cases}
1 & q_j = \argmax_j \in \{q_j \in Q | (i, j) \in E\} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
\item
\textbf{Random Better}:
%
Each delegating voter, $v_i$, selects one of their neighbours uniformly at random from the set of neighbours with higher competence. That is, $v_i$ delegates to a random voter from the set $N^{+}_G\brackets{i}$ where:
\[
N^{+}_G(i) = \left\{j\in V \mid (i,j)\in E\;, \; q_j > q_i \right\}
\]
%
\[
p^\text{rand\_better}(v_i, v_j) = \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{|N^+(v_i)|} & j \in N^+(v_i) \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
\item
\textbf{Proportional Better}:
%
Delegators delegate to a neighbour with higher accuracy, however, the chance of delegating to a neighbour is directly correlated with the difference between their guru's accuracy and that of the delegator.
\[
p^\text{prop\_better}(v_i, v_j) \propto \begin{cases}
\frac{q_{d^*(j)} - q_i}{\sum_{v_k \in N^+(v_i)} q_{d^*(k)}-q_i } & j \in N^+(v_i) \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
\item
\textbf{Proportional Weighted}:
%
Delegation probabilities are based on both the accuracy difference between delegator and delegatee, as well as the weight of the representative ultimately being delegated to. A lower weight leads to a higher delegation probability.
\[
p^\text{prop\_weighted}(v_i, v_j) \propto \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{w_{d^*(j)}} \frac{q_{d^*(j)} - q_i}{\sum_{v_k \in N^+(v_i)} q_{d^*(k)}-q_i } & j \in N^+(v_i) \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Delegation Graph Models}
\label{section:delegation_models}
In addition to generating delegation graphs via those delegation functions defined above, we also define two methods of directly constructing delegation graphs.
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
\textbf{Competence-Based Attachment (CBA)}:
%
This model creates a delegation graph by applying the idea of preferential attachment \cite{battiston2020networks} to voter competencies. Given voter competencies and some set of gurus, the remaining voters select a delegate based upon each potential delegates relative competence. \autoref{alg:cba_algorithm} outlines the procedure in more detail.
\begin{comment}
% Also will need to change which algorithm packages are loaded if uncommenting this.
\begin{algorithm}
Competence Based Preferential Attachment (CBA)\label{alg:CBA}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State For each voter $v\in V$, with probability $p$ append $v$ to $\calA$ the set of active voters.
\State For each voter $v\in V$ sample independently competence $q_v\sim \calD$ from competence distribution $\calD$.
\State Initialise the set of relevant voters $S$,
$S \gets \calA$\;
\While {$S\neq V$}
\State Select a voter $v\in V\setminus S$ and \textbf{attach} it
to another voter $\hat{v}\in S$ with probability of attachment proportional to its competence $P\brackets{v, \hat{v}}\sim \frac{q_{\hat{v}}}{\Sum{u\in S}{}q_u}$.
\State Update: $S \gets S\cup \set{v}$.
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Competence-Based Attachment (CBA)}
\label{alg:cba_algorithm}
\raggedright
\textbf{Input}: $V, Q, \mathcal{G}$
\begin{algorithmic}[1] %[1] enables line numbers
\STATE $S \gets \mathcal{G}$
\STATE $E \gets \emptyset$
\STATE $D \gets (V, E)$
\WHILE {$S\neq V$}
\STATE Select one voter $v_i\in V\setminus S$ uniformly at random.
\STATE Select one voter $v_j \in S$ with probability proportional to its relative competence; $P(v_j) \propto \frac{q_j}{\Sum{v_k\in S}{}q_k}$
% \STATE \textbf{Attach:} Add an edge $(v_i, v_j)$ to $E$.
\STATE \textbf{Attach:} $E \gets E\cup (v_i, v_j)$.
\STATE \textbf{Update}: $S \gets S\cup \set{v_i}$.
% \STATE \textbf{Update}: $V \gets V\setminus \set{v_i}$.
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\item
\textbf{Stars and Chains (SC)}:
%
A basic structure parameterized by $(s, s_\text{comp}, n_s, c, c_\text{comp}, n_c)$. This model constructs a delegation graph consisting of $s$ small \textit{star} components each with $n_s - 1$ delegators and 1 guru, and $c$ large \textit{chains} with $n_c - 1$ delegators. Gurus are thus located at the center of the stars and at one end of the chains.
%
Gurus in star and chain components have competence $c_\text{comp}$ and $s_\text{comp}$, respectively. Each chain component should have more voters than are in all star components combined, that is $n_c > sn_s$ (typically we consider settings where $n_c = sn_s + 1$ but that is not required). \autoref{fig:stars_and_chains_tikz_example} visualizes a simple SC delegation graph.
\end{itemize}
\section{The Dynamics of $\alpha^*$}
\nimrod{Maybe a better name for this section is: "Pathological Networks"? This will be nicely contrasted with the "experimental section" then.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[
roundnode/.style={circle, draw=blue!60, fill=blue!5, very thick, minimum size=5mm},
squarednode/.style={rectangle, draw=red!60, fill=red!5, very thick, minimum size=5mm},
]
% \draw (-1,0) -- (0,0) -- (1,0);
%nodes
% First chain
\node[roundnode] (a1) {};
\node[roundnode] (a2)[right= of a1] {} ;
\node[roundnode] (a3)[right= of a2] {} ;
\node[roundnode] (a4)[right= of a3] {} ;
\node[squarednode] (A) [right= of a4] {A} ;
% \node[squarednode, label=below:0.9] (A) [right= of a4] {A} ;
% Second chain
\node[roundnode](b1)[below= of a3]{};
\node[squarednode] [right= of b1] (B){B};
% \node[squarednode, label=below:0.8] [right= of b1] (B){B};
% Third chain
\node[roundnode][below= of b1](c1){};
\node[squarednode][right= of c1](C){C};
% \node[squarednode, label=below:0.8][right= of c1](C){C};
%Lines
\draw[->] (a1) -- (a2) -- (a3) -- (a4) -- (A);
\draw[->] (b1) -- (B);
\draw[->] (c1) -- (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A Stars and Chains delegation graph. The value of $\alpha^*$ depends greatly upon the competence values assigned to each of gurus $A$, $B$, and $C$.}
\label{fig:stars_and_chains_tikz_example}
\end{figure}
Prior work studying liquid democracy has only considered the situation where $\alpha = 1$. In contrast, note that $\alpha = 0$ is a form of direct democracy where delegated votes become irrelevant as their weight is $0$ and all gurus have equal weight. Viscous democracy lies in the middle between these two settings with $0 < \alpha < 1$. In this section, we demonstrate that $\alpha^*$ may lead to any of liquid, direct, or viscous democracy based upon other factors within the setting.
%
\nimrod{I think that speaking here, right away, about $\alpha^*$ is not good: in particular, it is a "big jump" for the reader as the reader just hopefully semi-understood what are all the ingredients that we have defined above, and the concept of $\alpha^*$ is a rather involved concept build *on top* of the basic model ingredients. Thus, I have several suggestions: (1) Add a nice example before this section (at the end of the last section) and demonstrate all the things in the formal model, including the computation of the delegations and the vote weights; (2) Add a nice experimental section *before* this section in which we *do not* speak of $\alpha^*$ but speak about the group accuracy as a function of $\alpha$ -- simply demonstrating that it change. And, after this, we (and the readers) will be ready for this discussion on $\alpha^*$.}
It is important to note that accuracy is a piecewise function with respect to $\alpha$. Accuracy changes only when $\alpha$ causes a change in the sets of gurus that make up a majority of weight.
\ben{Add some discussion on this always being piecewise so $\alpha^*$ being exactly 0 or 1 would rely on a tie which we don't love.}
\subsection{Liquid Democracy: $\alpha^* = 1$}
We first show that there exist settings where liquid democracy (i.e., where $\alpha^* = 1$) leads to optimal accuracy. Below we present an example where increasing $\alpha$ always weakly increases accuracy.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:3_voters-ld_best}
Consider the delegation graph in \autoref{fig:stars_and_chains_tikz_example} with 3 chains of voters. Let $q_A = 0.9$ and $q_B = q_C = 0.4$. When $\alpha = 1$, $w_A = 5$ and the outcome depends entirely on $A$'s vote and, thus, group accuracy is $0.9$. When $\alpha < 0.848$, $w_A < w_B + w_C$ and accuracy drops to approximately $0.772$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Direct Democracy: $\alpha^* = 0$}
We now show, for the same delegation graph, a setting of competencies where lower values of $\alpha$ are weakly superior to higher values.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:3_voters-cd_best}
%
Consider again the SC delegation graph of \autoref{fig:stars_and_chains_tikz_example}.
Let $q_A = 0.9$ and $q_B = q_C = 0.8$. As before, when $\alpha = 1$, group accuracy depends solely on $A$ and is $0.9$. In this case, however, decreasing $\alpha$ to the pivotal $\alpha = 0.848$ causes accuracy to increase due to the relative strength of voters $B$ and $C$. When $\alpha < 0.848$, accuracy increases to approximately $0.928$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Viscous Democracy: $0 < \alpha^* <1$}
In contrast to the previous examples we now present a simple example where accuracy is maximized when $0 < \alpha <1$.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:3_voters-vd_best}
%
Now consider a SC delegation graph with $s = 6$, $s_\text{comp} = 0.8$, $n_s = 5$, $c = 3$, $c_\text{comp} = 0.5$, $n_c = 30$. That is, $6$ star components each with size $5$ and $3$ chain components each with size $30$.
When $0 \leq \alpha < 0.25$, the group accuracy is roughly $0.91$. However, the weight of star components increases more quickly than that of chain components as $\alpha$ increases. For $0.25 \leq \alpha \leq 0.5$, accuracy becomes approximately $0.94$. For higher values of $\alpha$, the larger chain components begin to dominate and accuracy decreases. Here, $\alpha^* \in [0.25, 0.5]$.
Figure~\ref{fig:non_extreme_alpha} shows a family where non-extreme alpha is optimal.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/stars_and_chains_accuracy.png}
\caption{Accuracy in Stars and Chains delegation graphs as $\alpha$ varies from 0 to 1. Each series varies $s_\text{comp}$ and sets $s = 6$ $n_s = 5$, $c = 3$, $c_\text{comp} = 0.5$, $n_c = $ As $\alpha$ changes, the sets of gurus able to form a majority of weight shifts in a piecewise manner. Optimal $\alpha$ occurs in $[0.25, 0.5]$}
\label{fig:non_extreme_alpha}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\subsection{Intuition Regarding $\alpha^*$}
Here we have demonstrated, for the first time, the existence of settings where $0 < \alpha^* < 1$ using the Stars and Chains delegation graph model. Intuitively, this graph structure leads to interesting dynamics as $\alpha$ changes due to the non-linearity in the corresponding changes in guru weights.
The weight of some guru $v_s$ in a star component increases linearly with $\alpha$; $w_s$ = $1 + n_s\alpha$. On the other hand, the weight of a guru $v_c$ in a chain component increases based on the polynomial $w_c = 1 + \alpha + \alpha^2 + \alpha^3 + ...$ While this particular delegation structure is somewhat contrived, we believe similar structures may often occur in more realistic settings. In any setting where gurus receive the majority of their delegations at different distances from each other, there is a strong possibility that $\alpha < 1$ may be weakly, if not strongly, optimal.
\begin{comment}
\subsection{\ben{Leftovers}}
\ben{Personally, I think this stuff is interesting but, as is, doesn't add enough to justify existing.}
\begin{observation}
\ben{This is interesting but does it add a huge amount? Might be better cut and worked in elsewhere.}
%
If we consider the same example just that $w_A = n',\; n' = n-4$ we have a limit for the threshold of choosing appropriate alpha.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\underset{n'\rightarrow\infty}{lim}\Sum{i=0}{n'}\alpha^i - 2\alpha -2 &=0 \\
\frac{1}{1-\alpha} - 2\alpha -2 &= 0, \; 0<\alpha<1 \\
2\brackets{1-\alpha^2}&=1 \\
\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &\approx 0.707
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Here we note that the example can be generalised $n$ delegates in the first chain such that the threshold for $alpha$ would get lower each time converging to $\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ from the top.
%
\end{observation}
\subsection{Generalized Example and Speculation}
\ben{Need to do something with this. Would be nice to come up with something conclusive but maybe just delete it.}
Figure~\ref{fig:non_extreme_alpha} shows a family where non-extreme alpha is optimal. It \textit{appears} that the following setting is sufficient for optimal $\alpha$ in $(0, 1)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $s$ identical small components, each with competence $s_{comp}$ and $d$ direct delegators for a total weight of $d+1$.
\item $l$ identical large components, each with competence $l_{comp}$ and $s(d+1)$ delegators arranged in a chain for a total weight of $sd + s + 1$.
\item Each large component has more weight by itself than all small components combined.
\item If Acc(all large components) $< s_{comp}$ then $0 < \alpha < 1$ leads to optimal group accuracy.
\end{itemize}
\end{comment}
\section{Optimal Delegation Graphs}
\nimrod{This section somehow feels not connected to the rest of the paper; perhaps it simply should be removed to be *after* the experimental analysis? And, also, perhaps it needs some *connecting sentences* -- I'm not sure which, though; any suggestions?}
\shiri{Happy to see and connect wherever, but it is nice to show the theoretical intricacies before the experimentation section}
Here we are interested in the problem of computing optimal delegation graphs. More formally, consider the following problem: Given a social network upon which voters exist, we look for a delegation graph that maximizes accuracy.
\begin{definition}
%
In the \textsc{Optimal Delegation Graph} (ODG) problem we are given a network of voters $G = (V, E)$ and the task is to find a subgraph $D = (D, E_d \subseteq E)$ that is a viable delegation graph (i.e. there are no cycles in $D$) which maximizes accuracy.
%
\end{definition}
For $\alpha = 1$ we know that ODG is NP-hard.
%
This follows from the work of \citeauthor{caragiannis2019contribution}~\cite{caragiannis2019contribution}.
\begin{corollary}
For $\alpha = 1$, ODG is NP-hard.
It is also NP-Hard to approximate to within a factor of $\nicefrac{1}{16}$.
\end{corollary}
For the case of $\alpha = 0$, however, we can solve ODG in polynomial time.
\begin{theorem}
For $\alpha = 0$, ODG is in P.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
%
Observe that, for $\alpha = 0$, setting a voter to delegate to some other voter effectively removes that voter, as no weight is transferred through delegation. Thus, to solve ODG we can iterate over $k \in [n]\cup \set{0}$, which is the number of voters to remove. In particular, for each $k \in [n]\cup \set{0}$, look for the $k$ voters with the lowest accuracy and remove them (i.e. have them make arbitrary delegations). Now, compute the accuracy (this can be done in polynomial time using dynamic programming~\cite{becker2021can}). Finally, select the $k$ for which the accuracy is the highest.
As all voters are equally weighted, it is always strictly better to include a more competent voter in place of a less competent voter and removing some number of least competent voters will solve ODG.
%
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm: ODG is NP-Hard}
For $\alpha = \frac{1}{m}, m\in \mathbb{N}$, ODG is NP-Hard.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will construct a reduction from \textit{Restricted Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C)} into an instance of $ODG$. We know the first problem is NP-hard (see \cite{GONZALEZ1985293} for details).
Here in an instance is a set $X = \set{x_1,..,x_{3n}}$, a family $\calF = \set{S_1,..,S_{3n}}$ such that each set $S_i$ has 3 elements from $X$, and each element from $X$ appears in exactly 3 sets from $\calF$. A \textbf{solution} for the problem is a subfamily $\calF'\subset \calF$ such that $X = \underset{S_j \in \calF'}{\bigcup S_j}, S_j\cap S_i = \emptyset$.
We will construct from the following corresponding instance in the \textit{ODG} problem (see \autoref{fig:X3C_to_ODG}):
\begin{itemize}
\label{reduciton: X3C to ODG}
\item For each set $S_1,.. ,S_{3n}$ we will have a voter $S_i$ with competence $q>0.5$.
\item For each element $x_i\in X$ we have 3 sets $S_{i_1}, S_{i_2}, S_{i_3}$ that is appears in. We connect an outgoing edge to each of them. The competence for $x_i$ is set to $q_{x_i} = 0, \forall i\in{1,..,3n}$.
\item Lastly we have a set of dummy voters $d_1,..,d_{2n}$ with competence $q=0$ that are connected to all the the \textit{set voters} $S_1,.., S_{3n}$ with outgoing edges. Each dummy voter has peripherally a set of dummy voters $e^{i}_1,..,e^{i}_z$ that are connected to it. Each has competence of $q_{e}=0$, this was designed to incentives these voters to delegate otherwise they contribute negatively to the outcome of an election.
\end{itemize}
$\implies$ Given a solution for the \textit{Restricted 3-Set Exact Cover} $\calF' = \set{S_{j_1}, S_{j_2}.., S_{j_n}}$ we will delegate each $x_i$ to its corresponding $S_j$ it appears in. Each of these $S_j$ voters now has a weight of $1+3\alpha$, for the remaining $2n$ sets we shall delegate dummy voters from $d_1,..,d_{2n}$ such that each get one dummy voter. Since for each dummy voter we got $e_1,..,e_z$ the total weight for these voters is : $1+\alpha + z\cdot \alpha^2$. Thus, we set $z = \frac{2}{\alpha}$ then all the $S_i$ voters in the central layer have the same weight, $w^{*}=1+3\alpha$. We know that this correspond to the optimal weight distribution due to the Jury Theorem\explainindetail{Should insert a reference perhaps}.
$\impliedby$ We now have to show that an optimal delegation of the votes would lead to an exact cover. First we have to consider that the only voters that would be active are the $\set{S_i}$ since they have positive competence. They all have the same competence so an optimal outcome would happen when they all have equal weight. Distributing the total weight proportionally, would mean each set voter $S_i$ would get one dummy voter $d_j$ with its associated voters $e^{i}_1,..,e^{i}_z$ or three delegations from $x_1,..,x_{3n}$ voters. Since any other combination of voters delegations would be too much weight, and thus causing one of the other voters to have too little weight compared to the desired $w^{*}=1+3\alpha$. Note that we could achieve lower weight for $d_i$ if some of the peripheral $e^{i}_j$ would be active, but since their competence is zero we wouldn't want them active, as they would incur damage on the group accuracy. Next we look at the sets $S_i$ that have incoming delegations from the first layer of $x_i$ and select those $S_i$s' to be our cover $\calF'$, we know that it satisfies all the condition to be an exact 3 set cover for $X$.
%
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
Theorem \ref{Thm: ODG is NP-Hard} could be extended to any rational alpha $\alpha=\frac{k}{m}$ by reducing from $X\brackets{k+1}C$ problem, aka restricted exact cover with sets containing $k+1$ elements, that each element $x$ appear in exactly $k+1$ sets. The construction follows the same steps. We then set $z=m$, that causes the optimal weight to be $w^{*}=1+\brackets{k+1}\cdot\alpha$ for each set.
\explainindetail{Make sure RX3C has extensions to RX4C... RX$k$C}
\end{claim}
\begin{comment}
\begin{corollary}
We can extend the proof to show that for $\alpha = \frac{k}{m}, k,m\in \mathbb{N}$, ODG is NP-Hard. We do this by adding satellite dummy voters to $S_i$
\end{corollary}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/X3C-ODG.drawio.png}
\caption{In this figure we have 4 layers of nodes, the bottom layer is corresponding to elements from the set $X$, the second layer are sets $S_1,..,S_{3n}$. The third layer is dummy voters $\set{d_i}$, and the forth layer is additional set of dummy voters connected to the third layer in order to adjust the weights.}
\label{fig:X3C_to_ODG}
\end{figure*}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Chain Length Distribution in Optimal Delegation Graphs}
Here we explore the effect of viscosity on the average length of the delegation chains in the optimal delegation graphs (as found by simulated annealing).
\missingProof{Insert the chain length figure here}
\ben{Did we ever do this with simulated annealing? I don't recall this saying anything interesting about viscosity specifically.}
\ben{I think fold this into what I've proposed in the Delegation Graph Structure subsection (currently 6.4) since it's all experimental and doesn't seem entirely related to ODG.}
\subsubsection{Theoretical Analysis}
\nimrod{Hmm.. Do we have some theoretical stuff to say here?}
\end{comment}
\section{Experimental Analysis}
We have shown by example that there exist delegation graphs with $\alpha^* < 1$. In this section we now show experimentally the extent to which $\alpha^*$ is often below 1. We examine first the CBA topology defined in \autoref{section:delegation_models} then consider how often delegation mechanisms on a randomly generated social network benefit from viscosity.
Our experiments in \autoref{sec:CBA_experiments} and \autoref{sec:optimal_alpha_delegating} explore 9 parameterizations each of 3 competence distributions:
\nimrod{So why do we have *here* these distributions and not in the formal model above?}
\begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*)]
\item \textit{Uniform} - Intervals of width $0.2$ from $U\brackets{0, 0.2}$ shifted up to $U\brackets{0.8, 1}$ in equal steps of $0.1$.
\item \textit{Gaussian} - $\mu \in \{0.1, 0.2, ..., 0.9\}$, $\sigma = 0.05$
\item \textit{Exponential} - $\mu \in \{0.1, 0.2, ..., 0.9\}$
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Calculating Accuracy and $\alpha^*$}
\label{sec:optimal_alpha}
Below we describe how we compote the accuracy (it is not straightforward as it is the expectation of a rather involved stochastic process) and $\alpha^*$.
\subsubsection{Monte Carlo Simulations for Group Accuracy}
As discussed by \citeauthor{alouf2022should}, computing accuracy exactly for liquid democracy settings is computationally impractical \cite{alouf2022should}. Further, the dynamic algorithm for computing accuracy described by \citeauthor{becker2021can} does not work with $\alpha < 1$. As a result, we use Monte Carlo simulation to estimate accuracy by running many elections with the same set of parameters. Each reported accuracy result is the fraction out of 1000 elections in which $a^+$ was successfully elected, following the same procedure as \citeauthor{alouf2022should}.
\subsubsection{Estimating $\alpha^*$}
\ben{Needs a lot of reworking.}
As we cannot calculate accuracy exactly, we must also estimate $\alpha^*$. An added complication is the observation that accuracy is a piecewise function with respect to $alpha$. That is, it is possible $\alpha^*$ is, in reality, a range of values rather than a single value.
We are primarily interested in identifying settings where $\alpha^*$ is strictly below $1$ so we take a simple, cautious approach to estimation, described below:
\ben{Should be rewritten as a formal algorithm.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Select $\mathrm{A}$ evenly spaced points on the interval $[0, 1]$.
\item For each $\alpha_t \in \mathrm{A}$, compute $k$ estimations of group accuracy (that is, independently estimate group accuracy $k$ times using $1000$ Monte Carlo trials each).
\item Compute $\mu_t$ and $\sigma_t$ of the $k$ accuracy estimates for $\alpha_t$.
\item Set $\alpha^s$ to a default value of 1.
\item For each $\alpha_t \in \mathrm{A}$, if $\mu_t - \sigma_t > \mu_s - \sigma_s$ then set $s \leftarrow t$.
\end{enumerate}
The above procedure is done once per trial in the experiment (at least 50 times) and two values remain. We take the most common value of $\alpha_s$ as $\alpha^*$. We also report in our experiments on the fraction of these trials in which $\alpha^s < 1$.
\begin{comment}
In this paper we take a relatively strict approach to calculate the optimal value of $\alpha$ by following a statistical procedure.
\begin{itemize}
\item we break down the line $(0, 1)$ to equal parts and check a range of possible candidates $\left(\alpha_1,.., \alpha_i\right)$ be the value for which we test $\alpha^{*}$.
\item For each value $i$ we run $t$ trials of Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the $P_{vc}$. From these we can extract $\mu_i, \sigma_i$ with respect to $P_{vc}$.
\item Lastly we go from $\alpha = 1$ and iterate for the following expression :
$\mu_i - \sigma_i > \mu_j + \sigma_j$ whenever the inequality holds we update the index for $\alpha^{*}$ (the optimal $\alpha$) to be $i$.
\item Since this is a noisy procedure and we run it multiple times, we output $\alpha^{*}$ as the value that has been selected most frequently.
\end{itemize}
Notice that is a strict comparison, an therefore give slight advantage to the initial value we start the computation from, which is $\alpha = 1$, therefore we look for situation where the value we find is strictly better.
\end{comment}
\subsection{CBA Delegation Graphs}
\label{sec:CBA_experiments}
\autoref{fig:cba_optimal_alpha_aggregate} shows how $\alpha^*$ changes as average voter competence increases when voter delegations use a CBA topology. Each point represents 50 trials with 100 voters each.
As CBA graphs are dominated by a small number of powerful gurus, \autoref{fig:cba_optimal_alpha_aggregate} shows a phase shift occurring at approximately $\mu = 0.5$. At $\mu < 0.5$ most trials find $\alpha^* = 1$, corresponding to dominance from the large components in the graph. At $\mu > 0.5$, it becomes beneficial to have more gurus affecting the outcome (due to Jury Theorem effects; more voters is beneficial iff average competence is above $0.5$) so $alpha^*$ approaches 0.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/cba_aggregate_single_plot.png}
\caption{The mode value of $\alpha^*$ (left) and frequency with which $\alpha^*$ is strictly below $1$ (center) over 50 trials on randomly generated CBA delegation graphs. A typical CBA graph (right) is dominated by one or two gurus receiving the large majority of delegations. As $\alpha$ increases the most powerful gurus become dictators and beneficial jury-theorem effects are lost. \ben{These plots need a title. What fits?} \ben{A similar sort of graph for some stars and chains network might be nice.}}
\label{fig:cba_optimal_alpha_aggregate}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Delegation Functions}
\label{sec:optimal_alpha_delegating}
For each delegation mechanism and competence distribution, we ran 300 trials on randomly generated ER and BA social networks. \autoref{fig:opt_alpha_er_heatmap} shows how often each value of $\alpha$ is optimal for ER networks with $p=0.1$. \ben{Make sure to stick the BA one in an appendix}.
The heat map immediately make clear that $\alpha^*$ takes on a wide range of values. It is often $1$, but is often below $1$ as well. In particular, we see a shift similar to the CBA topology in \autoref{sec:CBA_experiments}: when mean competence is below 0.5, $\alpha^*$ is usually 1. When voters become more competent (which is a common assumption in many empirical settings), $\alpha^*$ takes on a wide range of values between $0$ and $0.5$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/aggregate_ER-no_network_label.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 300 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are on an Erdős–Rényi network with $p=0.1$ which is randomly regenerated at each trial. Similar results for Barabási–Albert networks are shown in \ben{an appendix}. \ben{Should probably remake these heatmaps with flipped y-axes :/}}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_er_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Delegation Graph Structure}
We examine the different properties of the delegation graph structure to see whether they have an impact on the accuracy or the value of optimal alpha.
\ben{When writing the above, it occurs to me that there may be interesting connections between structure of a delegation graph and $\alpha^*$. We've gone down this road before without finding anything but maybe it would be interesting to consider. It could be the most natural way to look at delegation chain length and the grofman distances.}
\ben{Exploring a connection here with grofman distance here would be nice, but doesn't strike \textit{me} as vital. Looking at it in the context of my above note is my preference.}
\shiri{I think we had some error in the chain length, but we also know that it is slightly independent, you are right that grofman is the way to go since it would ascribe appropriate to the strong competent voter and little to the ones with low competence.}
\subsection{Empirical Data}
\ben{It wouldn't be \textit{bad} to include some experiments on empirical networks but is maybe not necessary. If we do, maybe we can get a bunch of networks to test on and essentially just report that $\alpha^*$ is often below 1 on many of them.}
\shiri{We talked about some of the networks from SNAP, I guess we should run similar configuration from the previous experiements.}
% \begin{figure*}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/opt_alpha.png}
% \caption{Value of $\alpha^*$ as average competence increases. Often accuracy is the same at many values of $\alpha$; when accuracy is highest for some $\alpha < 1$ as it is for $\alpha=1$ we say that $\alpha^*=1$. \ben{I think we need to figure out a much more understandable way of communicating this information (and a more idea of what we actually want to be measuring).}}
% \label{fig:opt_alpha}
% \end{figure*}
% \begin{figure*}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/opt_alpha_below_1.png}
% \caption{Fraction of trials in which accuracy is at least as high for some value of $\alpha < 1$ than it is when $\alpha=1$.}
% \label{fig:opt_alpha_below_1}
% \end{figure*}
\section{Outlook}
\begin{itemize}
\item
Considering a model where voters have an ideal point $c\in \brackets{0,1}$ and error rate around it. The goal is to minimise the collective error as distance from the selected point, by selecting an ideal point using a version of \textit{viscous democracy}, similarly people can delegate or vote directly.
\item
One possible nice direction to do is to try to fit our probabilistic models to real-world data.
\item
We are in the quest for a (hopefully nicely-parameterized in a controlled-way) distribution/family of delegation graphs for which optimal alpha is something in the middle..
\item
We are also interested in developing an ML model that takes a setting and outputs the optimal alpha:
For example, perhaps we can do as follows: We take the input graph; we find the closest graph $G'$ to it that is a "Disjoint Path Star Decomposable Graphs"; then we look at the parameters of $G'$ and we know what alpha is best!
\item
\nimrod{Need to remember to write something about the motivation of viscous that comes perhaps not from democracy but from other stuff like group prediction and perhaps group recommendation etc.. and that this actually fits very well with truth-finding..}
\item
\nimrod{Can see whether we have some alternatives to Pearson correlation for the graph features that "predict" the optimal viscosity..}
\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\bibliography{bibliography}
% \bibliographystyle{named}
% \bibliography{bibliography}
\end{document}
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{todonotes}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
% Bibliography
\usepackage{natbib}
\newcommand{\shiri}[1]{{\color{blue}{Shiri says: #1}}}
\newcommand{\ben}[1]{{\color{green}{Ben says: #1}}}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\nimrod}[1]{\textcolor{red}{Nimrod: #1}}
\usepackage{hyperref}
%quotation packages.
\usepackage{quoting}
\usepackage{epigraph}
%To do notes package.
\usepackage{todonotes}
\newcommand{\insertref}[1]{\todo[color=green!40]{#1}}
\newcommand{\explainindetail}[1]{\todo[color=red!40]{#1}}
\newcommand{\missingProof}[1]{\todo[color=blue!40]{#1}}
%Graphics and images
\usepackage{graphicx}
%Logical Postulations
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{observation}{Observation}
\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{algorithm}{Algorithm}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newtheorem{proclamation}{Proclamation}
\newcommand{\calR}{\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\calCS}{\mathcal{CS}}
\newcommand{\calH}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\calN}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\calA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\V}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\calS}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\calL}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\calP}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\calM}{\mathcal{M}}
\newcommand{\calC}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\calD}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\calU}{\mathcal{U}}
%logical deductions commands.
\newcommand{\underClasue}[2]{\underset{#1 {\underbrace{#2}}}}
\newcommand{\brackets}[1]{\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\sqbrackets}[1]{\left[ #1\right]}
\newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\underSum}[1]{\underset{#1}{\sum}}
% Analysis commands
\newcommand{\diffBy}[1]{\frac{\partial}{\partial{#1}}}
\title{Real-World Liquid Democracy}
\date{November 2022}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section{Current Threads}
\begin{enumerate}
\item ECHO-CHAMBERS
\item SCHELLING Segregation model adapted to social networks to reflect echo-chambers dynamics
\item Viscous Democracy Modeling voting better.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Introduction}
\nimrod{There was this paper that did also Gini coefficient (and also what they call Satoshi coefficient) for DAOs.. we should look an see that we have some delta from them indeed}
\nimrod{Using DeepDAO's API costs money; but I used to have access and I downloaded some stuff, so we can use it as well..}
\nimrod{Here is a relevant paper to read and cite: \url{https://daniel-halpern.com/files/liquid-in-practice.pdf}}
\nimrod{Here is another very interesting and very relevant paper: \url{https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.01176.pdf} this one we should actually be sure to see that they don't override us..}
\shiri{They do run analysis on ENS, Compound and Uniswap}
\section{Preliminaries}
A Decentralised Autonomous Organization (DAO) is a set of unique public addresses on the etheurm in the blockchian, which we shall refer to as the agents. To be an \textit{active} member of a DAO one must have non-zero balance of the native token (the native currency for that eco system). For Each Proposal members vote with their tokens and all the token which have been delegated to them (directly or indirectly).
\subsection{A formal model of a DAO}
We consider instance of DAO $\brackets{\calD}$ at timestamp $t$ as ($\calD_t = \left<V^{t},w^{t},\calR\right>$).
%
In general since the DAO is a live dynamic system, we consider it over a time sequence.
\begin{definition}\label{TOKEN function}
The weight function. \newline
Representing $i$'s own tokens as well as those tokens are delegated to him directly or indirectly at the time of the vote
\begin{equation}
w^{t} : V^t \rightarrow \mathbb{N}
\end{equation}
NOTE : delegation is done through interaction with the DAO's onchain contract.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
We measure the cumulative amount of tokens a player has post an instance of a vote.
\end{remark}
%
\begin{definition}\label{DAO-active-members}Active Members of a DAO at time t, are those addresses that choose to participate with respect to the proposal at time $t$
\begin{equation}
V^t = \set{i\in \calU : w^t\brackets{i}:=w^{t}_{i} > 0}
\end{equation}
NOTE : here $\calU$ is the entire list of valid etheruem addresses.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Each proposal has a time window for the players to select whether to participate with respect to the proposal.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
A proposal \textbf{outcome} is determined by the weighted majority of those whom actively vote.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Power indices}
For a given DAO $\calD$ consider the following indices
\begin{definition}\label{gini-DAOs}
The gini index of a DAO $\calD$ at time $t$ :
\begin{equation}
G_t=\frac{\underSum{i\in V^t} \underSum{j\in V^t}\left|w^{t}_i-w^{t}_j\right|}{2 \underSum{i\in V^t} w^{t}_j}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
We should note that in terms of consistency, we assume the voters are staying active from one round to another.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Nakamoto index is the smallest number of addresses that has more then 50\% of the network tokens' weight under control.
\begin{equation}
\text{Nk}_t = argmin\left\{d\in \mathbb{N} : \overset{d}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}w^{t}_i> 0.5\right\}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
% In general we consider then $\V = \cup$
\section{Objective I - Power Over time}
\shiri{Assuming the following calls are possible}
\newline
\href{https://docs.snapshot.org/guides/delegation}{SNAP-Shot-delegation}
\shiri{Still searching for where to find proper data place we could scrape.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Get the data of a given DAO.
\item Fetch proposals
\item Fetch actual voting of how much by whom
\item Plot over time.. The X-axis are the different proposals, the Y-axis is the gini score.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Main Questions}
How can liquid democracy be expected to perform in an empirical setting?
\begin{itemize}
\item Using real-world data, what sort of delegation behaviours do humans typically exhibit and how do these affect outcomes of decision-making processes?
\item Can we use these real-world platforms to illustrate what best, worst, and average case outcomes would look like in practice?
\item Are there systemic changes that can improve on the average outcome of a delegative decision-making process?
\end{itemize}
\section{Conceptual Components}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Enumerate specific problems that come up when thinking about using LD in the real world. That is, why do people think LD would not be suitable for serious elections?
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{dictatorship}
\item \textbf{misrepresentation} through long delegation chains (e.g. eventually supporting the far right by a long chain of folks supporting someone slightly to their right)
\item misrepresentation by selecting an ill-fitting delegate (e.g. a celebrity, Elon Musk, etc.)
\item delegation cycles
\item influence of echo chamber dynamics (can that be more specific?)
\item other?
\end{itemize}
\item Identify potential systemic causes of these concerns. This may be in the form of depth of knowledge about other voters, number of others exposed to by the platform, which delegations are allowed, how long delegations last (i.e. just one vote or over multiple issues), how power flows through delegations, the existing opinion dynamics of the voting population, etc.
\item Suggest alternative structures or mechanisms that may avoid these issues. (I think this also fits well with our previous proposal on power in LD as I suspect changes in how power flows could be a solution method)
\end{enumerate}
\section{Empirical Components}
We have access to real-world delegation data from two sources: DeepDAO and the French Pirate Party.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Consider empirical data and determine whether we can see any of the aforementioned concerns materialize.
\item Develop a theoretical and simulation model that captures the dynamics of the concerns identified above.
\item Use simulations to evaluate the mechanisms we have suggested to fix the problems our model captures.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Power in LD}
Lots of the power index stuff from the other proposal is relevant. Personally, I think this would be a great opportunity to expand upon Viscous Democracy.
\shiri{I am open to explore that directionallity}
%
\newline
%
On a different note we can try to incorporate power dynamics into the \textit{trust flow}, a good basic Game Theoretic modeling has been done in :
\cite{bloem19}
\subsubsection{Future tasks}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Process code from DeepDAO API.
\item Compare the different indexes of power and plot them against each other the X-axis would be the time parameter.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Average Case Analysis}
Are there interesting papers talking about average case analysis? The rough idea of a model would be good to have.
\shiri{We can reference our own paper?, in particular we could overlay our competence generation model with "the real" data and contrast the information.}
\subsection{Issues people have with LD}
One thought was that it could be really cool to interview folks and get their thoughts on this but even that probably requires dumb ethics approval so just referring to what's already been published should be good enough.
\shiri{Strong Support, collecting the data is fine as long as we annonymise the individuals markers and ask for their consent prior to it should be fine}
I think Blum and Zuber \cite{blum2016liquid} likely have some solid contributions to a discussion of problems with LD and potential solutions.
%
\newline
%
\section{Features and Attributes - Ethical Questionaire approach}
\shiri{I think we would like to measure or direct the questions in order to have properties we could evaluate numerically perhaps ?}
The idea is to evaluate the different cognitive parameters that enhance peoples probability to delegate..
\subsection{Motivation and definition of the function}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \textbf{Location}(l) context i.e work, home, trip abroad..etc, naturally the more comfortable they are the more likely I suspect they are to delegate.
\item The \textbf{familiarity factor}(fa) family, friends or colleagues which makes people to feel comfortable enough to consider delegating.
\item A measure of \textbf{Consistency}(co) The delegate that evokes a sense that he can be relied upon.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Notes - Brain Storming} - Essentially all these metrics are measuring a degree of closeness.. each of them has an internal preferences which could be ordered leading to a score (0,1).
Properties the function should have :
\begin{enumerate}
\item The range should be 0 to 1 (V)\\
\shiri{Could be scaled if we want}
\item The affect of the different internal variables should be independent from one another. (V)
\item Diminishing returns.. explanation : getting little trust is much easier then getting plenty of trust.. in the top brackets i.e moving from 60\% to \%80 is much harder. (V)
\end{enumerate}
\explainindetail{Think about the domain of the variables since they are discrete, but ideally independent}
\subsection{Mathematical Properties of the familiarity index}
\ben{Discussion whether this function is appropriate or should we have different trust axioms for the function i.e the popular gets more popular}
\begin{definition}{\label=Proximity function}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\xi\brackets{\cdot}:\sqbrackets{0,1}^3 \rightarrow R\text{,}\\
&\xi\brackets{l,fa,co} = 1 - e^{-\brackets{{l + fa + Co}}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{claim}
The proximity function has bounded range.
\begin{proof}
The function is continuous from a compact domain hence it has a global minimum/maximum. Next, use lemma \ref{range of Pf is bounded}, to observe
that $\xi$ yields its minimum at $\xi\left(\overline{0}\right)=0$, and its maximum at $\xi\left(\overline{1}\right)\approx 0.95 <1$.
\end{proof}
\end{claim}
\begin{lemma}\label{partial derivatives are positive} The function has positive partial derivative in all its variables.
\newline
w.l.o.g consider one of its variables $\ell$ :
\begin{equation*}
\diffBy{\ell} \xi = -e^{-\brackets{{l + fa + Co}}} \cdot \brackets{-1} = e^{-\brackets{{l + fa + Co}}} > 0
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} The Proximity Function is monotone increasing for any positive linear combination of the internal variables over $\mathbb{R}^{+}${\label{range of Pf is bounded}}
\begin{proof}
Denote $t$ as a positive linear combination of $\set{\ell,\text{fa},\text{co}}$.
All of the partial derivatives of $t$ are positive see (\ref{partial derivatives are positive}) and $t\geq0$ due to the domain restrictions on $\set{l, fa, Co}$. To summarise we have that :
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&(i)\quad \frac{d}{dt}\xi>0 ,\xi\brackets{\overline{0}}=0\\
&(ii)\quad \implies \forall t: \xi\brackets{t}>0
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\section{Notes on DAOs in general}
Hi, I started this section to understand how Ethereum represent DAO structures..etc
\subsection{The Data Primitives on the ETH Chain}
Organising my thoughts on DAOs from online resources I am using.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \href{https://medium.com/coinmonks/how-to-deploy-a-dao-on-remix-a49d166556b9}
{Simple Tutorial of how to deploy a DAO}.
\item \href{https://ethereum.org/en/dao/#how-daos-work}{ETH-Official how DAOs work}
\item \href{https://api.deepdao.io/pro}{DeepDAO-Organizations-API}
\end{enumerate}
People have to delegate their token to vote, they can either delegate to themselves. So in theory there should be on chain trace of \textit{address-A} interacting with the \textbf{Token-contract} using the \textbf{delegate function} to another \textit{address-B}.
\section{Data}
\shiri{According to our initial investigation the data is not dynamic enough to see any trends in the delegation. Should we just ask for more ?}
\subsection{The French Pirate Party}
Translation :
Motion := Prorpsal
\subsection{Original Email descriptor of the data}
"""
It's not an update, it's DATA :)
So, here the context : votes in October 2022, 8 motions, around 60 people involved for each (more with the delegations). Identity (name or nickame) is hashed, not the Id of a person, if you prefer to have this data hashed, don't hesite to ask.
How it's structurized :
- first of all, it's a json object
- You have a result array, each item is a meeting
- In it you have a motion array
- Each motion contains
- A motion container : label, type of winning ( \> 0 is for percentage winning, -2 is for majority judgement, ...)
- A propositions array : each proposition for the motion, with explanation of the result, the label of the proposition
- A delegations containers :
- The motion given to the delegation computer
- The votes given to the delegation computer (some delegation are gained if other people doesn't vote)
- The theme (which electoral people is noticed, and the voting power per capita before the delegations computations)
- The computed delegation according to the motion, the votes and the theme (powers)
- id, nickname, max\_power (the power of vote before the person delegates), power (the power of vote after the delegation are done), delegation\_level starts from 1 and up each time givers exist "behind" you, givers is the array of persons giving power of vote to you, with the same structure and with given\_power to the parent
Normally the data members are self-explanatory, but you can ask for more explanation.
I hope you will enjoy the data.
"""
%
Before figuring out how we can integrate the data we have: what data do we have? In particular,
\subsection{Features we need}
For now for the sake of simplicity we assume weighted majority voting, although some DAOs use Approval Voting and the like.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Delegations for now seems a bit tricky (WROTE to DeepDAO)
\shiri{Unfortunately they do not have delegation data, yet..
they recommended checking compound but that would have to be manually.}
\item We need a pipeline to process DAO , sequence of proposals, each vote we would like to see the weights.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{DeepDAO}
\textbf{Context:} One month free with 5000 calls to test our Pro API. "You will have access to all our data points, and I hope it could assist you".
\subsubsection{The Raw Data Primitives}
\href{https://api.deepdao.io/pro}{DeepDAO-Organizations-API}
The DeepDAO engine, aggregate data and offer it with a resolution of every 24 hours.. \shiri{The time series could be very interesting to explore}
\subsubsection{Questions about DeepDAO}
\begin{itemize}
\item How are delegations exposed on the DeepDAO API?
\item Are all proposals pass/fail? What other options are there?
\item How do we get the actual voters from the DeepDAO API?
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Proper features we could explore}
We can go on all the indexes that have been referenced in previous papers and run them on each organization, then plot the \textit{X-axis} as each snapshot vs the \textit{Y-axis} as one of the arbitrary power indices.
\newline
\textbf{The features}
%
\begin{enumerate}
\item Treasury
\item Number of token holders
\item Number of Proposals
\item Votes (CHECK granularity)
\item Top Stake Holders, based on activity and holding. (CHECK how it is determined)
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{French Pirate Party}
\textbf{The context} : votes in October 2022, 8 motions, around 60 people involved for each (more with the delegations). Identity (name or nickame) is hashed.
Main questions after looking at the data given to us:
\begin{itemize}
\item Is the power shown in delegations["votes"] the percentage of that voters power being delegated to that proposition?
\item Is abstaining (supporting the proposition "Ne se prononce pas") a default action or a choice? How can the weights of a voter (vot\_member\_id = 3040) not sum to 100?
\end{itemize}
\shiri{I emailed them, hopefully we would understand soon enough}
\subsection{Questions about Data}
\begin{itemize}
\item What are participants deciding?
\item Can we track individuals over time?
\item How many elections are represented?
\item How many participants are in each election?
\item How many of the participants delegate?
\item How many delegations travel further than one hop?
\item What information do voters have?
\item How long do delegations last?
\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{bibliography}
\end{document}
%%%% ijcai24.tex
\typeout{IJCAI--24 Instructions for Authors}
% These are the instructions for authors for IJCAI-24.
\documentclass{article}
\pdfpagewidth=8.5in
\pdfpageheight=11in
\widowpenalty10000
\clubpenalty10000
% The file ijcai24.sty is a copy from ijcai22.sty
% The file ijcai22.sty is NOT the same as previous years'
\usepackage{ijcai24}
\usepackage{placeins}
% Use the postscript times font!
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[small]{caption}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\usepackage[switch]{lineno}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage[capitalize]{cleveref}
% Comment out this line in the camera-ready submission
% \linenumbers
\urlstyle{same}
% the following package is optional:
%\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{subcaption}
%quotation packages.
\usepackage{quoting}
\usepackage{epigraph}
%To do notes package.
\usepackage{todonotes}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{appendix}
% \newcommand{\insertref}[1]{\todo[color=green!40]{#1}}
% \newcommand{\explainindetail}[1]{\todo[color=red!40]{#1}}
% \newcommand{\missingProof}[1]{\todo[color=blue!40]{#1}}
%Creating graphs
\usepackage{tikz}
%Logical Postulations
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{observation}{Observation}
\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newtheorem{proclamation}{Proclamation}
\newtheorem{problem}{Problem}
\newcommand{\algorithmautorefname}{Algorithm}
\newcommand{\lemmaautorefname}{Lemma}
\renewcommand{\sectionautorefname}{Section}
\newcommand*{\Appendixautorefname}{Appendix}
\newcommand{\argmin}{\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}}
\newcommand{\argmax}{\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}}
\newcommand{\calR}{\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\calCS}{\mathcal{CS}}
\newcommand{\calH}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\calN}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\calA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\V}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\calS}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\calL}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\calP}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\calM}{\mathcal{M}}
\newcommand{\calC}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\calD}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\calU}{\mathcal{U}}
\newcommand{\calF}{\mathcal{F}}
%logical deductions commands.
\newcommand{\underClasue}[2]{\underset{#1 {\underbrace{#2}}}}
\newcommand{\brackets}[1]{\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\sqbrackets}[1]{\left[ #1\right]}
\newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\underSum}[1]{\underset{#1}{\sum}}
% Analysis commands
\newcommand{\diffBy}[1]{\frac{\partial}{\partial{#1}}}
\newcommand{\Sum}[2]{\overset{#2}{\underset{#1}{\sum}}}
% Following comment is from ijcai97-submit.tex:
% The preparation of these files was supported by Schlumberger Palo Alto
% Research, AT\&T Bell Laboratories, and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
% Shirley Jowell, of Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, and Peter F.
% Patel-Schneider, of AT\&T Bell Laboratories collaborated on their
% preparation.
% These instructions can be modified and used in other conferences as long
% as credit to the authors and supporting agencies is retained, this notice
% is not changed, and further modification or reuse is not restricted.
% Neither Shirley Jowell nor Peter F. Patel-Schneider can be listed as
% contacts for providing assistance without their prior permission.
% To use for other conferences, change references to files and the
% conference appropriate and use other authors, contacts, publishers, and
% organizations.
% Also change the deadline and address for returning papers and the length and
% page charge instructions.
% Put where the files are available in the appropriate places.
% PDF Info Is REQUIRED.
% Please leave this \pdfinfo block untouched both for the submission and
% Camera Ready Copy. Do not include Title and Author information in the pdfinfo section
\pdfinfo{
/TemplateVersion (IJCAI.2024.0)
}
\title{Optimizing Viscous Democracy}
% % Single author syntax
% \author{
% Anonymous
% % \affiliations
% % Anonymous
% % \emails
% % mail@example.com
% }
% Multiple author syntax (remove the single-author syntax above and the \iffalse ... \fi here)
\author{
Ben Armstrong$^1$
\and
Shiri Alouf-Heffetz$^2$\and
Nimrod Talmon$^{2}$
\affiliations
$^1$University of Waterloo\\
$^2$Ben-Gurion University
\emails
ben.armstrong@uwaterloo.ca,
shirihe@post.bgu.ac.il,
talmonn@bgu.ac.il
}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\emph{Viscous democracy} is a generalization of liquid democracy, a social choice framework in which voters may transitively delegate their votes. In viscous democracy, a "viscosity" factor decreases the weight of a delegation the further it travels, reducing the chance of excessive weight flowing between ideologically misaligned voters.
We demonstrate that viscous democracy often significantly improves the quality of group decision-making over liquid democracy. We first show that finding optimal delegations within a viscous setting is NP-hard. However, simulations allow us to explore the practical effects of viscosity. Across social network structures, competence distributions, and delegation mechanisms we find high viscosity reduces the chance of ``super-voters'' attaining large amounts of weight and increases the number of voters that are able to affect the outcome of elections. This, in turn, improves group accuracy as a whole. As a result, we argue that viscosity should be considered a core component of liquid democracy.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
Liquid democracy~\cite{blum2016liquid}, an evolving concept in democratic theory, seeks to address the limitations of traditional direct and representative democracy by enabling flexible delegation of voting power. To do so, in liquid democracy, individuals choose between casting their votes directly or delegating their voting power to another voter of their choice. In contrast to simple proxy voting~\cite{green2015direct}, delegations are transitive and a delegation may ``flow'' through many voters. By merging the strengths of direct democracy and representative decision-making, liquid democracy enhances epistemic decision-making by incorporating diverse perspectives and informed opinions.
We study a generalization of liquid democracy -- viscous democracy~\cite{boldi2011viscous} -- which effectively limits the maximum weight voters can attain. In this variant, vote weights decrease exponentially the further a delegation travels. This ``viscosity'' in the computation of the vote weights has its roots in random walks and the PageRank algorithm~\cite{berkhin2005survey}. Viscous democracy offers a compromise between the advantages of delegation and direct voting, potentially curbing excessive concentration of power while maintaining the flexibility core to liquid democracy.
Here, we are interested in quantifying the potential benefit of adding viscosity to liquid democracy. A pivotal factor in this assessment is the dampening factor or ``viscosity'' -- denoted by~$\alpha$ throughout the paper -- which governs the rate of weight decay as delegation chains lengthen.
As we show, the influence of $\alpha$ extends beyond decision quality, affecting the overall structure of those delegation graphs that achieve a high quality of decision making. We are interested in identifying suitable values of~$\alpha$ generally and for specific settings.
%
Specifically, we seek to unravel the relationship between the value of $\alpha$ and the quality of decision making, as well as exploring how $\alpha$ shapes the topology of optimal delegations.
In this paper we adopt a dual approach, employing analytical and theoretical methodologies, as well as computer-based simulations. Theoretical analyses provide insights into the fundamental dynamics and properties of viscous democracy; simulations, on the other hand, offer a tangible platform for observing the empirical behavior of viscous democracy under varied conditions, facilitating a more realistic assessment of its outcomes and interactions. The combination of these approaches enriches our understanding of the complex interactions within the system of viscous democracy.
We view our work as fundamental to the better understanding of viscous democracy; as such, it paves the way to tools that can optimally parameterize viscous democracy in different settings, setting the dampening parameter $\alpha$ based on the specific properties of the setting at hand. As we show, the improvement to the quality of decision making from viscosity is frequently significant.
\begin{remark}
%
The introduction of viscosity to liquid democracy is a deviation from the principle of ``one person, one vote'' which, therefore, may render it inappropriate for democratic contexts in which equality in voting is essential~\cite{shapiro2018point}. We show, however, that it does prove advantageous in other applications; in particular, in those that prioritize prediction accuracy (e.g., a group prediction regarding the price of some stock), group recommendation (the application discussed alongside the introduction of viscous democracy~\cite{boldi2011viscous}), and other, general collaborative settings (e.g., a collaborative venture capital such as The DAO~\cite{hassan2021decentralized}). In these scenarios -- due to varying levels of competence in the population around different topics of discussion -- the nuanced decision-making facilitated by viscosity enhances collective intelligence, allowing for better decision making.
%
\end{remark}
\section{Related Work}
By now, there is a relatively large corpus of literature on liquid democracy.
%
This includes works that study liquid democracy from a political science perspective~\cite{blum2016liquid,paulin2020overview}; from an algorithmic point of view~\cite{kahng2021liquid,dey2021parameterized,caragiannis2019contribution}; from a game-theoretic point of view~\cite{zhang2021power,bloembergen2019rational,escoffier2019convergence}; and from an agenda aiming to increase the expressive power that is granted to voters~\cite{brill2018pairwise,jain2022preserving}.
This work concentrates on the epistemic approach to social choice; we assume some ground truth of the decision to be made and evaluate the accuracy of the voting system at revealing ground truth using a common model for epistemic liquid democracy \cite{alouf2022should,kahng2021liquid,caragiannis2019contribution,halpern2021defense}.
% Prior work on this setting has shown that optimizing delegations in the non-viscous setting is NP-hard~\cite{caragiannis2019contribution} and that no delegation mechanism where voters use only local information from their social network can guarantee an improvement to group accuracy~\cite{kahng2021liquid}. Experimentally, it has been shown that (non-viscous) liquid democracy frequently outperforms direct voting at identifying ground truth~\cite{alouf2022should}.
Viscous democracy is relatively under-studied within liquid democracy. The original paper on the topic \cite{boldi2011viscous} establishes some intuition and a relation to the PageRank algorithm \cite{berkhin2005survey}; but there is no analysis regarding the effect of one specific value of the dampening factor compared to another, nor is there analysis discussing how to choose the factor. Viscous democracy was also applied as a setting for group recommendation system~\cite{boldi2015liquid}.
\section{Model}
Our formal model describes how voters are embedded in an underlying social network, how they may delegate, and how group decisions are ultimately made.
\subsection{Delegation Graphs}
We adopt a basic epistemic social choice setting with $n$ voters, $V = \{v_1, \ldots, v_n\}$, and two alternatives $A = \{a^+, a^-\}$. We assume that $a^+$ is an objectively correct outcome that all voters collectively aim to elect. Each voter $v_i \in V$ has a competency level $q_i \in Q$ in the range $[0, 1]$ that corresponds to the probability that $v_i$ would vote ``correctly'' (i.e., would vote for $a^+$). Voters are connected via an underlying social network $G = (V, E)$ with a set of undirected edges $E$ representing the connections between voters (where delegations can occur as direct arcs only along these connections).
Our model generalizes liquid democracy -- a system enabling transitive delegations. Each voter $v_i$ is able to perform one of two actions: They may vote directly, as above, supporting $a^+$ with probability $q_i$, or they may delegate their vote to a voter in their set of neighbours, $N_G(i) = \{j \in V | (i, j) \in E\}$. If a voter votes directly, then we refer to them as a \textit{guru} and model them as delegating to themselves.
A delegation function $d: V \rightarrow V$ outputs the delegation of each voter. $d(v_i) = v_j$ indicates that $v_i$ delegates to $v_j$. Delegation applies transitively so that a delegation might ``travel'' several hops before reaching a guru. $d^*(v_i)$ refers to the repeated application of $d(v_i)$ until a self-delegation (i.e. a guru) is reached. The guru of $v_i$ is $d^*(v_i)$ and denote the set of all gurus as $\mathcal{G}(V)$.
We disallow any delegation from $v_i$ to $v_j$ that would result in a cycle.% (such a delegation is not made; $v_i$ attempts to make another delegation on the subgraph of $G$ from which all edges connected to $v_j$ have been removed).
This is done to prevent loss of votes within the voting process. In our experiments we choose a fixed proportion of voters to delegate while the remainder vote directly.
Note that a delegation function induces a directed subgraph of~$G$ containing (directed versions of the) edges in~$E$ only when a delegation flows between the two nodes of an edge. We call this a \textit{delegation graph} of $G$, denoted $D = (V, \{(i, j) \in E | d(i) = j \})$. A delegation graph can be conceived of as a forest of directed trees, where all edges in each tree flow towards the singular guru in that tree.
\subsection{Vote Weights}
In ``traditional'' liquid democracy, the weight of each guru is equal to the number of delegations it receives, either directly or indirectly. This paper builds upon a model introduced by \citeauthor{boldi2011viscous} referred to as \textit{viscous democracy} \cite{boldi2011viscous}. Each edge that a delegation travels reduces its weight by a constant dampening factor $\alpha \in [0, 1]$, also referred to as the viscosity. Thus, the weight of each voter $v_i$ is,
\[
w_{i} =
\begin{cases}
% 0 & \text{if } d^*(v_i) \neq v_i \\
0 & \text{if } v_i \notin \mathcal{G}(V) \\
\sum_{p \in \operatorname{Path}(-, i)} \alpha^{|p|} & \text{otherwise }
\end{cases}
\]
where $\operatorname{Path}\brackets{-, i}$ denotes all paths of delegations that reach $v_i$.
%
Note the following:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
When $\alpha = 1$, viscous democracy reduces to the standard liquid democracy setting.
\item
At lower values of $\alpha$, guru weights change based upon the structure of the delegation graph. Weights of voters that are further away from their guru decrease more than the weights of voters close to the guru.
\item As there are no cycles, there is at most one path between any two voters.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Group Accuracy}
As there are only two alternatives, we use weighted plurality voting (following May's theorem~\cite{may1952set}) to determine the winner of an election. Specifically, each guru selects one alternative, based upon their competence, and commits all of their weight to supporting that alternative. The alternative receiving the most total weight is the winner. The probability that~$a^+$ will be selected as the winner is referred to as \textit{group accuracy}, or, simply \textit{accuracy}.
Accuracy is a function of the delegations and the voter competencies but, crucially, it is also affected by $\alpha$. We denote the accuracy of given viscosity, competencies, and delegations as $Acc(\alpha, Q, D)$. We refer to the value of $\alpha$ that maximizes group accuracy as $\alpha^*$. The existence of $0 < \alpha^* < 1$ and the dynamics of $\alpha^*$ are a major focus of this paper.%: essentially, given a specific setting of a delegation graph, we are interested in evaluating the ``optimal'' value of viscosity.
% \ben{Some of this (text and commented bit) could fit better at the end of the intro.}
We can now formally specify an \textit{election} by either of two forms (we use these interchangeably, as the first form implies the second):
%
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\mathbb{E} = (Q, G, d)$:
%
Here, an election is a combination of voter competencies, an underlying social network, and a delegation function which may be used to determine a delegation graph $D$; or
\item
$\mathbb{E} = (Q, D)$:
%
Here, an election consists of voter competencies and an already existing delegation graph.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{comment}
We define viscous democracy (Section~\ref{section:viscousdemocracy}), the concept of delegation model (Section~\ref{section:delegation_models}), and the epistemic approach applied for viscous democracy (Section~\ref{section:epistemicvoting}).
\subsection{Viscous Democracy}
\label{section:viscousdemocracy}
The voting system of viscous democracy can be described formally as follows:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
There is a set of agents $V$.
\item
There is a social network -- referred to also as the \emph{admissible delegations} graph -- where:
the agents $V$ are the nodes $V$ in the network: $G = \brackets{V, E}$;
and, the arcs in the network $E$ are those on which voters can choose their delegates -- a voter can either vote directly or delegate their vote to another voter, but only to a neighbor in $G$.
\item
In a specific election over $G$ each agent either decides to vote directly -- we consider only voting on a binary issue, so a direct vote is either $0$ or $1$ -- or to delegate their vote to a neighbor in $G$. This corresponds to a delegation graph, which is a directed graph with outdegree at most $1$.
\item
Following an intuition that long delegation chains shall have less effect --- due to issues of trust, alignment of preferences, and competence -- the following is the definition of voting weight and corresponds to the way delegations are counted:
given a delegation graph, the voting weight of each agent is proportional to the following equation:
\begin{equation}
score\brackets{i}\propto\sum_{p \in \operatorname{Path}(-, i)} \alpha^{|p|}
\end{equation}
(where $\operatorname{Path}\brackets{-, i}$ denotes all possible paths of delegations that reach $i$; and $\lvert p\rvert$ denotes the length of the path.) We also denote it with $w_i$.
\item
Importantly, note that $\alpha$ is a \textit{viscosity} factor (or, equivalently, the ``dampening factor'' parameter) that controls how much weight propagates along delegation chains.
%
(In particular, e.g., if $\alpha = 1$, then it gives a standard liquid democracy; while, $\alpha < 1$ causes far delegations to give less weight.)
\item We denote with $d^{*}\brackets{j}$ - the voter that $j$'s vote transitively ends up with.
\end{itemize}
% A notable effect of viscosity is that \textbf{delegation cycles become ``acceptable''} as a result of delegation weight degrading through the cycle and converging to a fixed point.
% Here the edges are delegations edges, using these we define a weight for each voter and use that for actual voting.
% A slightly more general version would allow voters to approve several voters and then the algorithm would choose which voter to delegate to in order to maximise the accuracy.
\subsection{Epistemic Voting}
\label{section:epistemicvoting}
We consider the ground-truth model of voting (i.e., the epistemic approach in social choice), which we formally define as follows:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
As mentioned above, we consider voting on a binary issue where the possible options are $\{0, 1\}$.
\item
We assume, without loss of generality, that the correct option is $1$.
\item
For each agent we have a value $q \in [0, 1]$ -- referred to as her \emph{competence} -- indicating the probability that, when voting, the agent will vote correctly.
%
At times, we abuse notation and write $q_i$ to be the probability itself (thus, equating the voter with her competence).
\item
Practically, when a voter with competence $q$ votes directly, it is understood as if the voter throws a coin such that with probability $q$ she votes $1$ and with probability $1 - q$ she votes~$0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{comment}
% Our model requires setting voter competences, an underlying social network, and either a delegation method to create a delegation graph based on the underlying network or a fixed delegation graph. Here we describe the variety of values for these parameters that we explore.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[
roundnode/.style={circle, draw=blue!60, fill=blue!5, very thick, minimum size=4mm},
squarednode/.style={rectangle, draw=red!60, fill=red!5, very thick, minimum size=4mm},
]
% \draw (-1,0) -- (0,0) -- (1,0);
%nodes
% First chain
\node[roundnode] (a1) {};
\node[roundnode] (a2)[right= of a1] {} ;
\node[roundnode] (a3)[right= of a2] {} ;
\node[roundnode] (a4)[right= of a3] {} ;
\node[squarednode] (A) [right= of a4] {A} ;
% \node[squarednode, label=below:0.9] (A) [right= of a4] {A} ;
% Second chain
\node[roundnode](b1)[below=0.5cm of a1]{};
\node[squarednode] [right= of b1] (B){B};
% \node[squarednode, label=below:0.8] [right= of b1] (B){B};
% Third chain
\node[roundnode][below=0.5cm of a4](c1){};
\node[squarednode][right= of c1](C){C};
% \node[squarednode, label=below:0.8][right= of c1](C){C};
%Lines
\draw[->] (a1) -- (a2) -- (a3) -- (a4) -- (A);
\draw[->] (b1) -- (B);
\draw[->] (c1) -- (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A Stars and Chains delegation graph. The value of $\alpha^*$ depends greatly upon the competence values assigned to each of gurus $A$, $B$, and $C$.}
\label{fig:stars_and_chains_tikz_example}
\end{figure}
\section{Families of Delegation Graphs}
Throughout this paper we explore several different families of delegation graphs of two varieties: We first describe delegation graphs that are induced by the application of a delegation function to voters on a social network. Second, we introduce two simple delegation graph models that are constructed directly, without a specific delegation function, to serve as illustrative examples.
\subsection{Social Networks}
Our experiments explore two types of underlying social networks $G$ that voters exist upon: both empirical and artificially-generated networks. The empirical networks we consider are collected from a variety of sources and detailed in \cref{appendix:real_world_networks}.
To generate artificial networks we use two well-studied probabilistic models that are often used to replicate properties of real-world social networks~\cite{Kleinberg-networks-book}: Erdős–Rényi (ER) and Barabási–Albert (BA) networks. Both of these models are parameterized by the number of nodes and a parameter controlling their edge density ~\cite{erdos1960evolution,albert2002statistical}.
Unless stated otherwise, voters are placed on social networks uniformly at random.
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item
% \emph{Erdős–Rényi (ER)}:
% %
% ER networks are parameterized by two parameters --- the number of nodes (voters) $n$ and the connection probability $p$ --- and are generated by initializing an empty network of $n$ nodes and independently inserting each possible edge with the fixed connection probability $p$ ~\cite{erdos1960evolution};
% and
% \item
% \emph{Barabási–Albert (BA)}: BA networks are parameterized by two parameters; the number of nodes (voters) $n$, and an connection amount $m$. They are generated via a preferential attachment process beginning with $m$ fully connected nodes and adding nodes one at a time, connecting them to $m$ existing nodes where the probability of attachment is proportional to the existing node's degree~\cite{albert2002statistical}.
% \end{enumerate}
% \subsection{Competence Distributions}
% \ben{This is redundant (and seems very slightly off topic here?); any reason not to delete it in favour of the more detailed version in \autoref{sec:experiments}?}
% We are interested in the effects of different voter competence distributions in our experiments.
% %
% Specifically, for each experiment we select a single probability distribution $\mathcal{D}$ from which we draw voter competencies, so that for each $v_i \in V$ we independently sample a value $q_i \sim \mathcal{D}$. We consider the following families of distributions:
% %
% \begin{itemize}
% \item
% uniform distributions;
% \item
% truncated normal distributions;\footnote{We use the SciPy implementation of the truncated normal distribution \cite{burkardt2014truncated}.} and
% \item
% truncated exponential distributions.\footnote{Since the exponential distribution does not provide an upper bound on sampled values whenever we sample a competency value greater than $1$ we map the value to $1$. This leads to a mean value slightly lower than the original distribution, i.e $\mu' = \frac{1}{\lambda} - \frac{e^{-\lambda}}{\lambda}$.}
% \end{itemize}
\subsection{Delegation Functions}
Delegation functions use a social network and the competence of each voter to determine, for each delegating voter, to whom they delegate. We define delegation probability functions $p(v_i, v_j)$ as giving the probability that $v_i$ will delegate to $v_j$. A delegation function $d$ specifies a delegate for each voter based upon $p(v_i, v_j)$.
Our experiments consider several concrete delegation probability functions, defined formally in \cref{appendix:delegation_function_descriptions}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Max}: Each delegating voter delegates to their most competent neighbour.
\item \textbf{Random Better}: Each delegating voter delegates to a neighbour more competent than themselves chosen with uniformly random probability.
\item \textbf{Proportional Better}: Each delegating voter delegates to a neighbour more competent than themselves chosen with probability proportional to the competence of each potential guru.
\item \textbf{Proportional Weighted}: Each delegating voter delegates to a neighbour more competent than themselves with probability proportional to the competence \textit{and} weight of each potential guru, such that gurus with higher weight are less likely to receive delegations.
\end{itemize}
%
\subsection{Delegation Graph Models}
\label{section:delegation_models}
We also explore two directly-constructed graph families which we use to demonstrate the possible effects of changing viscosity.
%
The first model is a natural adaptation of the model of preferential attachment while the second model generates very simple graphs that highlight some basic topological properties that affect the optimal viscosity.
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
\textbf{Competence-Based Attachment (CBA)}:
%
This model creates a delegation graph by applying the idea of preferential attachment to voter competencies~\cite{battiston2020networks}. Given voter competencies and some set of gurus the remaining voters select a delegate based upon the relative competence of each potential delegate. For completeness, \autoref{alg:cba_algorithm} outlines the procedure in more detail.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Competence-Based Attachment (CBA)}
\label{alg:cba_algorithm}
\raggedright
\textbf{Input}: $V, Q, \mathcal{G}$
\begin{algorithmic}[1] %[1] enables line numbers
\STATE $S \gets \mathcal{G}$
\STATE $E \gets \emptyset$
\STATE $D \gets (V, E)$
\WHILE {$S\neq V$}
\STATE Select one voter $v_i\in V\setminus S$ uniformly at random.
\STATE Select one voter $v_j \in S$ with probability proportional to its relative competence; $P(v_j) \propto \frac{q_j}{\Sum{v_k\in S}{}q_k}$
% \STATE \textbf{Attach:} Add an edge $(v_i, v_j)$ to $E$.
\STATE \textbf{Attach:} $E \gets E\cup (v_i, v_j)$.
\STATE \textbf{Update}: $S \gets S\cup \set{v_i}$.
% \STATE \textbf{Update}: $V \gets V\setminus \set{v_i}$.
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\item
\textbf{Stars and Chains (SC)}:
%
A basic structure parameterized by $(s, s_\text{comp}, n_s, c, c_\text{comp}, n_c)$. This model constructs a delegation graph consisting of $s$ small \textit{star} components each with $n_s - 1$ delegators and 1 guru, and $c$ large \textit{chains} with $n_c - 1$ delegators. Gurus are thus located at the center of the stars and at one end of the chains.
%
Gurus in star and chain components have competence $c_\text{comp}$ and $s_\text{comp}$, respectively. Each chain component should have more voters than are in all star components combined, that is $n_c > sn_s$ (typically we have considered settings where $n_c = sn_s + 1$ but that is not required). \autoref{fig:stars_and_chains_tikz_example} visualizes a simple SC delegation graph.
\end{itemize}
\section{Optimal Delegation Graphs}
Here we provide bounds on the complexity of finding delegations within a viscous setting that maximizes group accuracy.
%
Informally, given a social network and some value of $\alpha$, we are interested in the combinatorial problem of picking for each voter whether she will vote directly or whether she will delegate to some other voter, and, if so, to whom.
% Here, in the first theoretical section, we are interested in the problem of computing optimal delegation graphs:
% i.e., given a social network upon which voters exist, we look for a delegation graph that maximizes the accuracy.
\begin{definition}
%
In the \textsc{Optimal Delegation Graph} (ODG) problem we are given a network of voters $G = (V, E)$ and the task is to find a subgraph $D = (V, E_D \subseteq E)$ that is a viable delegation graph of $G$ (i.e. there are no cycles in $D$) and which maximizes the accuracy.
%
\end{definition}
Next we analyze the computational complexity of ODG.
%
First, note that, for the case of $\alpha$, we can solve ODG in polynomial time.
\begin{theorem}
For $\alpha = 0$, ODG is in P.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
%
Observe that, for $\alpha = 0$, setting a voter to delegate to some other voter effectively removes that voter, as no weight is transferred through delegation. Thus, to solve ODG we can iterate over $k \in [n]\cup \set{0}$, which is the number of voters to remove. In particular, for each $k \in [n]\cup \set{0}$, look for the $k$ voters with the lowest accuracy and remove them (i.e. have them make arbitrary delegations). Now, compute the accuracy (this can be done in polynomial time using dynamic programming~\cite{becker2021can}). Finally, select the $k$ for which the accuracy is the highest.
As all voters are equally weighted, it is always strictly better to include a more competent voter in place of a less competent voter and removing some number of least competent voters will solve ODG.
%
\end{proof}
For $\alpha = 1$, however, \citeauthor{caragiannis2019contribution} (\citeyear{caragiannis2019contribution}) have shown that ODG is NP-hard.
%
% This follows from the work of \citeauthor{caragiannis2019contribution}~\cite{caragiannis2019contribution}.
\begin{corollary}
For $\alpha = 1$, ODG is NP-hard.
Furthermore, for this case, it is also NP-hard to approximate ODG to within a factor of $\nicefrac{1}{16}$~\cite{caragiannis2019contribution}.
\end{corollary}
Below, we provide the first results on the complexity of ODG for $0 < \alpha < 1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm: ODG is NP-Hard}
For $\alpha = \frac{1}{m}, m\in \mathbb{N}$, ODG is NP-Hard.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
%
The proof follows a reduction from the NP-hard problem \textit{Restricted Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C)}~\cite{GONZALEZ1985293} to $ODG$.
%
An instance of X3C consists of a set $X = \set{x_1,..,x_{3n}}$, a family $\calF = \set{S_1,..,S_{3n}}$ where each set $S_i$ has 3 elements from $X$, and each element from $X$ appears in exactly 3 sets from $\calF$. The task is to decide whether a subfamily $\calF'\subset \calF$ such that $X = \underset{S_j \in \calF'}{\bigcup S_j} \text{and } S_j\cap S_i = \emptyset$ exists.
We will construct the following instance for the \textit{ODG} problem (see \autoref{fig:X3C_to_ODG}):
%
\begin{itemize}
\label{reduciton: X3C to ODG}
\item For each set $S_1,.. ,S_{3n}$ we will have a voter $S_i$ with competence $q_{S_i} > 0.5$.
\item For each element $x_i\in X$ we have 3 sets $S_{i_1}, S_{i_2}, S_{i_3}$ that $x_i$ appears in. We connect an outgoing edge to each $S_i$ from $x_i$. The competence of $x_i$ is set to $q_{x_i} = 0, \forall i\in{1,..,3n}$.
\item Lastly, we have a set of dummy voters $d_1,..,d_{2n}$ with competence $q_{d} = 0$ that are connected to all the the \textit{set voters} $S_1,.., S_{3n}$ with outgoing edges. Each dummy voter has peripherally a set of dummy voters $e^{i}_1,..,e^{i}_z$ that are connected to it. Each has competence of $q_{e}=0$, designed to incentivize the dummy voters to delegate otherwise they contribute negatively to the outcome of an election.
\end{itemize}
This completes the description of the reduction. Below we prove the two directions for correctness.
%\ben{Can the actual ``A if and only if B'' expression be put somewhere? Currently the task is to ``decide whether a subfamily exists'' so I don't know what we're trying to prove in each direction.}
%\shiri{If such family exists we have an optimal delegation, the other direction is optimal delegation applies such family exists.}
$\implies$ Given a solution for the \textit{Restricted 3-Set Exact Cover} $\calF' = \set{S_{j_1}, S_{j_2}.., S_{j_n}}$, we shall delegate each $x_i$ to its corresponding $S_j$ it appears in $\calF'$. There is only one such set $S_{j_\ell}$ because $\calF'$ is an exact cover. Each of these $S_j$ in layer 2 (see figure \ref{fig:X3C_to_ODG}) voters now has a weight of $1+3\alpha$: weight from the node itself plus weight from three delegators, $x_{j_1}, x_{j_2}, x_{j_3}$, that are each one hop away (and thus have their weight reduced by the viscosity factor). For the remaining $2n$ sets in layer 2 we shall delegate one dummy voter from $d_1,..,d_{2n}$ to each set in layer 2 that is $S_r\in\calF\setminus \calF'$, the matching is arbitrarily. Since each set $S_r$ receives one dummy $d$ voter delegation and further delegations from $z$ peripheral $e$ voters that travel an extra hop. $S_r$ has a total weight of $1+\alpha + z\cdot \alpha^2$. Thus, we set $z = \frac{2}{\alpha}$ then all the $S_i$ voters in the central layer have the same weight, $w^{*}=1+3\alpha$.
%
We know that this corresponds to the optimal weight distribution due to a direct application of Condorcet's Jury Theorem \cite{grofman1983thirteen}: Each $S_i$ has $q_{S_i} > 0.5$ so more active $S_i$ will monotonically increase group accuracy, and optimal weighted voting for when all $S_i$ have the same competence is equal weight distribution.
$\impliedby$ Next, we show that optimal delegation indeed leads to an exact cover.
%
First we have to consider that the only voters that would be active are the $\set{S_i}$, since they are solely the ones with positive competence.
%
They all have the same competence, that is larger then $0.5$, so an optimal outcome would take place when they all have equal weight, again (see \cite{grofman1983thirteen}).
%
Distributing the total weight equally would mean each \textit{set} voter $S_i$ would get one dummy voter $d_j$ with its associated voters $e^{i}_1,..,e^{i}_z$ or three delegations from $x_1,..,x_{3n}$ voters.
%
Since any other combination of voter delegations would mean some voters would receive excess weight and at least one voter would end up with less weight, thus causing a deviation from the optimal weight of $w^{*}=1+3\alpha$.
%
Note that we could achieve lower weight for $d_i$ if any of the peripheral $e^{i}_j$ did not delegate, but since their competence is zero they must not be active voters in the optimal delegation graph as that would reduce group accuracy.
%
Next we look at the sets $S_i$ that have incoming delegations from the first layer of $x_i$ and select those $S_i$'s to be our cover $\calF'$, we know that it satisfies all the condition to be a \textit{restricted exact 3 set cover} for $X$.
%
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Theorem \ref{Thm: ODG is NP-Hard} could be extended to any rational $\alpha=\frac{k}{m}$ by reducing from the $X\brackets{k+1}C$ problem (i.e., restricted exact cover with sets containing $k+1$ elements, where each element $x$ appear in exactly $k+1$ sets). The construction follows similar steps; we then set $z=m$, which causes the optimal weight to be $w^{*}=1+\brackets{k+1}\cdot\alpha$ for each set.
\end{remark}
\begin{comment}
\begin{corollary}
We can extend the proof to show that for $\alpha = \frac{k}{m}, k,m\in \mathbb{N}$, ODG is NP-Hard. We do this by adding satellite dummy voters to $S_i$
\end{corollary}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.41\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/X3C-ODG-v2.drawio.png}
\caption{Illustration of the reduction described in the proof of Theorem~\ref{Thm: ODG is NP-Hard}. There are 4 layers of nodes, the bottom layer is corresponding to elements from the set $X$, the second layer are the sets $S_1,..,S_{3n}$. The third layer is dummy voters $\set{d_i}$, and the fourth layer is an additional set of dummy voters connected to the third layer in order to adjust the weights.}
\label{fig:X3C_to_ODG}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Chain Length Distribution in Optimal Delegation Graphs}
Here we explore the effect of viscosity on the average length of the delegation chains in the optimal delegation graphs (as found by simulated annealing).
\missingProof{Insert the chain length figure here}
\ben{Did we ever do this with simulated annealing? I don't recall this saying anything interesting about viscosity specifically.}
\ben{I think fold this into what I've proposed in the Delegation Graph Structure subsection (currently 6.4) since it's all experimental and doesn't seem entirely related to ODG.}
\subsubsection{Theoretical Analysis}
\nimrod{Hmm.. Do we have some theoretical stuff to say here?}
\end{comment}
\section{Some Pathological Cases Regarding \texorpdfstring{$\alpha^*$}{alpha^*}}
We now concentrate on whether viscosity provides actual benefits to accuracy over liquid democracy.
%
The standard model of liquid democracy used in most prior work only explores the situation where $\alpha = 1$. In contrast, recall that $\alpha = 0$ is a form of direct democracy where delegated votes become irrelevant as their weight is $0$ and all gurus have equal weight. Viscous democracy lies in the middle between these two settings with $0 < \alpha < 1$. In this section we show that there exist many parameterizations of delegation graphs for which a different one of direct, liquid, and viscous democracy are strictly beneficial.
Note that accuracy is a piecewise function with respect to~$\alpha$: i.e., accuracy changes only when $\alpha$ causes a change in the sets of gurus that make up a majority of weight. This means that, typically, $\alpha^*$ is not a unique value but rather a range of values. However, for simplicity we typically refer to it as a single value.
% In this section we are interested in considering whether, for each possible value of $\alpha$, there is at least one graph (or graph family) where this value is $\alpha^*$. That is: does every level of viscosity maximize group accuracy in at \textit{some} setting? \ben{Maybe this is not the best way to describe this section since we don't (I think?) go so far as actually demonstrating this?}
% In this section, we are interested in considering whether, for each value of $\alpha^*$, there is at least one graph (or graph family) that admits this value; this means that we aim at examining whether there are indeed situations in which different viscosity levels lead to the highest group accuracy. This can be viewed as a kind of a ``sanity check'' on the idea of viscous democracy -- in that we aim at studying whether all viscosity values are, at least sometimes, useful.
% When considering how alpha affects accuracy, note that accuracy is a piecewise function with respect to $\alpha$. That is, accuracy changes only when $\alpha$ causes a change in the sets of gurus that make up a majority of weight.
% In this section, we demonstrate that $\alpha^*$ may lead to any of liquid, direct, or viscous democracy.
\subsection{Liquid Democracy: \texorpdfstring{$\alpha^* = 1$}{alpha = 1}}
We first show that there exist settings in which liquid democracy (i.e., where $\alpha^* = 1$) leads to optimal accuracy. Below we present an example where increasing $\alpha$ always weakly increases accuracy.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:3_voters-ld_best}
Consider the delegation graph in \autoref{fig:stars_and_chains_tikz_example} with 3 chains of voters. Let $q_A = 0.9$ and $q_B = q_C = 0.4$. When $\alpha = 1$, $w_A = 5$ and the outcome depends entirely on $A$'s vote and, thus, group accuracy is $0.9$. When $\alpha < 0.848$, $w_A < w_B + w_C$ and accuracy drops to approximately $0.772$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Direct Democracy: \texorpdfstring{$\alpha^* = 0$}{alpha^* = 0}}
We now show, for the topology of the delegation graph, a setting of competencies where lower values of $\alpha$ are weakly superior to higher values.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:3_voters-cd_best}
%
Consider again the SC delegation graph of \autoref{fig:stars_and_chains_tikz_example}.
Let $q_A = 0.9$ and $q_B = q_C = 0.8$. As before, when $\alpha = 1$, group accuracy depends solely on $A$ and is $0.9$. In this case, however, decreasing $\alpha$ to the pivotal $\alpha = 0.848$ causes accuracy to increase due to the relative strength of voters $B$ and $C$. When $\alpha < 0.848$, accuracy increases to approximately $0.928$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Viscous Democracy: \texorpdfstring{$0 < \alpha^* < 1$}{0 < alpha^* < 1}}
In contrast to the previous examples we now present a simple example where accuracy is maximized when $0 < \alpha <1$.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:3_voters-vd_best}
%
Consider a SC delegation graph with $s = 6$, $s_\text{comp} = 0.8$, $n_s = 5$, $c = 3$, $c_\text{comp} = 0.5$, $n_c = 30$. That is, $6$ star components each with size $5$ and $3$ chain components each with size $30$.
When $0 \leq \alpha < 0.25$, the group accuracy is roughly $0.91$. However, the weight of star components increases more quickly than that of chain components as $\alpha$ increases. For $0.25 \leq \alpha \leq 0.5$, accuracy becomes approximately $0.94$. For higher values of $\alpha$, the larger chain components begin to dominate and accuracy decreases. Here, $\alpha^* \in [0.25, 0.5]$.
Figure~\ref{fig:non_extreme_alpha} showcases a family in which non-extreme alpha (i.e., $0 < \alpha^* < 1$) is optimal.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/stars_and_chains_accuracy.png}
\caption{Accuracy in Stars and Chains delegation graphs as $\alpha$ varies from 0 to 1. Each series varies $s_\text{comp}$ and sets $s = 6$ $n_s = 5$, $c = 3$, $c_\text{comp} = 0.5$, $n_c = 30$ As $\alpha$ changes, the sets of gurus able to form a majority of weight shifts in a piecewise manner. Optimal $\alpha$ occurs in $[0.25, 0.5]$}
\label{fig:non_extreme_alpha}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\subsection{Intuition Regarding \texorpdfstring{$\alpha^*$}{alpha^*}}
Here we have demonstrated, for the first time, the existence of settings where $0 < \alpha^* < 1$; using the Stars and Chains delegation graph model. Intuitively, this graph structure leads to interesting dynamics as $\alpha$ changes due to the non-linearity in the corresponding changes in the weights of the gurus.
It is worthwhile to delve a little deeper into these graphs:
Observe that the weight of a guru $v_s$ in a star component increases linearly with $\alpha$: $w_s$ = $1 + n_s\alpha$. On the other hand, the weight of a guru $v_c$ in a chain component increases based on the polynomial $w_c = 1 + \alpha + \alpha^2 + \alpha^3 + ...$ with degree equal to the length of the chain. While this particular delegation structure is somewhat contrived, we believe similar structures may often occur in more realistic settings. In any setting where gurus receive the majority of their delegations at different distances from each other, there is the possibility that $\alpha < 1$ may be weakly, if not strongly, optimal.
\begin{comment}
\subsection{\ben{Leftovers}}
\ben{Personally, I think this stuff is interesting but, as is, doesn't add enough to justify existing.}
\begin{observation}
\ben{This is interesting but does it add a huge amount? Might be better cut and worked in elsewhere.}
%
If we consider the same example just that $w_A = n',\; n' = n-4$ we have a limit for the threshold of choosing appropriate alpha.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\underset{n'\rightarrow\infty}{lim}\Sum{i=0}{n'}\alpha^i - 2\alpha -2 &=0 \\
\frac{1}{1-\alpha} - 2\alpha -2 &= 0, \; 0<\alpha<1 \\
2\brackets{1-\alpha^2}&=1 \\
\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &\approx 0.707
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Here we note that the example can be generalised $n$ delegates in the first chain such that the threshold for $alpha$ would get lower each time converging to $\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ from the top.
%
\end{observation}
\subsection{Generalized Example and Speculation}
\ben{Need to do something with this. Would be nice to come up with something conclusive but maybe just delete it.}
Figure~\ref{fig:non_extreme_alpha} shows a family where non-extreme alpha is optimal. It \textit{appears} that the following setting is sufficient for optimal $\alpha$ in $(0, 1)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $s$ identical small components, each with competence $s_{comp}$ and $d$ direct delegators for a total weight of $d+1$.
\item $l$ identical large components, each with competence $l_{comp}$ and $s(d+1)$ delegators arranged in a chain for a total weight of $sd + s + 1$.
\item Each large component has more weight by itself than all small components combined.
\item If Acc(all large components) $< s_{comp}$ then $0 < \alpha < 1$ leads to optimal group accuracy.
\end{itemize}
\end{comment}
\section{Experimental Analysis}
\label{sec:experiments}
We have shown by example that there exist delegation graphs with $\alpha^* < 1$. In this section we concentrate on the frequency with which $\alpha^*$ is below $1$. We examine first the CBA topology defined in \autoref{section:delegation_models} and then consider how often delegation mechanisms on other randomly-generated and real-world social networks benefit from viscosity.
In order to understand $\alpha^*$ under a wide range of settings, each of our experiments consider voters with competencies drawn from one of 3 distributions. These are often explored as 9 parameterizations of each distribution:
%
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item \textit{Uniform} - Intervals of width $0.2$ from $U\brackets{0, 0.2}$ shifted up to $U\brackets{0.8, 1}$ in equal steps of $0.1$.
\item \textit{Gaussian} - $\mu \in \{0.1, 0.2, ..., 0.9\}$, $\sigma = 0.05$\footnote{We use the SciPy implementation of the truncated normal distribution \cite{burkardt2014truncated}.}
\item \textit{Exponential} - $\mu \in \{0.1, 0.2, ..., 0.9\}$\footnote{Since the exponential distribution does not provide an upper bound on sampled values whenever we sample a competency value greater than $1$ we map the value to $1$. This leads to a mean value slightly lower than the original distribution, i.e $\mu' = \frac{1}{\lambda} - \frac{e^{-\lambda}}{\lambda}$.}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Calculating Accuracy and \texorpdfstring{$\alpha^*$}{alpha^*}}\label{sec:optimal_alpha}
Before we can describe the results of our experiments, we discuss how we compute accuracy and $\alpha^*$.
\subsubsection{Monte Carlo Simulations for Group Accuracy}
As discussed by \cite{alouf2022should}, computing accuracy exactly for some liquid democracy settings is computationally impractical. Furthermore, the dynamic algorithm for computing accuracy described previously \cite{becker2021can} does not work with $\alpha < 1$. We use Monte Carlo simulation to estimate accuracy by running many elections with the same parameters. Each reported accuracy result is the proportion of 1000 elections in which $a^+$ was successfully elected, following the same procedure as \citeauthor{alouf2022should}.
\subsubsection{Estimating the Value of \texorpdfstring{$\alpha^*$}{alpha^*}}
%
Additional complexity that arises from the fact that \textit{group accuracy} is a piecewise function in terms of $\alpha$. Therefore the optimal $\alpha^*$ is actually an interval, in terms of notation we often refer to the upper bound of that interval.
We are primarily interested in identifying settings where $\alpha^*$ is strictly below $1$ so we take a simple, cautious approach to estimation, described formally in \cref{appendix:estimating_optimal_alpha}. In short, we calculate accuracy several times at 21 evenly spaced values of $\alpha$ in $[0, 1]$ (chosen to test at every interval of 0.05). Given two values of $\alpha$: $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_t$, the mean, and st. dev. of accuracy estimates at $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_t$ we say that $\alpha_t$ is better than $\alpha_s$ if $\mu_t - \sigma_t > \mu_s + \sigma_s$.
The best value emerging from this procedure is $\alpha^*$. If no value is strictly better than $\alpha = 1$ we say that $\alpha^* = 1$. As each experiment is run for many trials, we end up with one value of $\alpha^*$ for each trial. Thus, we typically report the mode value of $\alpha^*$ across all trials.
\subsection{CBA Delegation Graphs}
\label{sec:CBA_experiments}
\autoref{fig:cba_optimal_alpha_aggregate} shows how $\alpha^*$ changes as the average voter competence increases when voter delegations use a CBA topology. Each point represents 50 trials with 100 voters each.
As CBA graphs are dominated by a small number of powerful gurus, \autoref{fig:cba_optimal_alpha_aggregate} shows a phase shift when mean competence reaches roughly $0.5$ At $\mu < 0.5$ most trials find $\alpha^* = 1$, corresponding to dominance from the large components in the graph. At $\mu > 0.5$, it becomes beneficial to have more gurus affecting the outcome (due to Jury Theorem effects; more voters is beneficial when average competence is above $0.5$) so $\alpha^*$ approaches 0.
% \begin{figure*}
% \centering
% \textbf{Competence Based Attachment Visualization}\par\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/cba_aggregate_single_plot.png}
% \caption{The mode value of $\alpha^*$ (left) and frequency with which $\alpha^*$ is strictly below $1$ (center) over 50 trials on randomly generated CBA delegation graphs of 100 voters. A typical CBA graph (right) is dominated by one or two gurus receiving the large majority of delegations. As $\alpha$ increases the most powerful gurus become dictators and beneficial jury-theorem effects are lost. \ben{Maybe we could move the CBA graph to appendix and/or merge the left two graphs.}}
% \label{fig:cba_optimal_alpha_aggregate}
% \end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
% \textbf{Competence Based Attachment Visualization}
% \par
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/CBA_vertical_dual_plot-with_network.png}
\caption{(Top) The mode value of $\alpha^*$ (solid) and frequency with which $\alpha^*$ is strictly below $1$ (dashed) over 50 trials on randomly generated CBA delegation graphs of 100 voters. A typical CBA graph (Bottom) is dominated by a few gurus receiving the large majority of delegations. As $\alpha$ increases the most powerful gurus become dictators and beneficial jury-theorem effects are lost.}
\label{fig:cba_optimal_alpha_aggregate}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Viscosity in Random Networks}
\label{sec:optimal_alpha_delegating}
For each delegation mechanism and competence distribution, we ran 300 trials on randomly generated ER and BA social networks. \autoref{fig:opt_alpha_er_heatmap} shows how often each value of $\alpha$ is optimal for ER networks with $p=0.1$.
The heatmap immediately makes clear that $\alpha^*$ takes on a wide range of values. It is often $1$, but is often below $1$ as well. In particular, we see a shift similar to the CBA topology in \autoref{sec:CBA_experiments}: when mean competence is below 0.5, $\alpha^*$ is usually 1. When voters become more competent, $\alpha^*$ takes on a wider range of values between $0$ and $0.5$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/aggregate_ER-no_network_label.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 300 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the number of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are on an a 100 voter Erdős–Rényi network with $p=0.1$ which is randomly regenerated at each trial. Similar results for Barabási–Albert networks are shown in \cref{appendix:experiment_results-heatmaps}.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_er_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
Moreover, \autoref{fig:improvement_from_alpha} shows the amount by which accuracy can be improved simply by setting $\alpha$ optimally. \autoref{fig:improvement_from_alpha} displays the difference between accuracy when $\alpha$ is set to 1 and when it is set to the approximate optimal value. When evaluating Uniform and Gaussian competence distributions, mean competence over 0.5 show significant benefit from optimal values of alpha while only mild improvement is seen with Exponential competencies. This effect holds across network type and delegation mechanism, as seen in \cref{appendix:experimental_results-accuracy_improvement}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/improvement_from_alpha/improve_from_alpha-max.png}
\caption{Accuracy improvement from using optimal viscosity vs no viscosity ($\alpha = 1$) for voters on random graph models delegating using the Max delegation mechanism. Results are averaged over 30 trials with 100 voters per experiment.}
\label{fig:improvement_from_alpha}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Delegation Graph Structure}
We have examined several properties of the delegation graph structure to see whether they have an impact on the value of optimal alpha. From the delegation graphs of the same experiments discussed in \autoref{sec:optimal_alpha_delegating} we computed the values of several features. On this dataset, with $\alpha^*$ as a target variable, we ran a RandomForest regression. This found that no single feature was extremely predictive of $\alpha^*$ but mean competence was the \textit{most} predictive. Specifically, higher competence values were related with lower values of $\alpha^*$. A list of features we explored, and their importances is included in \cref{appendix:feature_importance}.
\subsection{Empirical Data}
To strengthen the results we show in \autoref{sec:optimal_alpha_delegating} we have run delegation experiments over several real-world networks. The networks are described in detail in~\cref{appendix:real_world_networks} and cover a wide range of sizes and topologies. These experiments show very similar distributions of $\alpha^*$, suggesting that these results are highly robust to network structure.
\section{Discussion}\label{section:discussion}
This paper shows that \textit{viscous democracy} significantly improves upon liquid democracy in many realistic scenarios. On simulated and empirical networks, when voters tend to have moderate competence, a low value for $\alpha$ is likely to improve the chance of retrieving the ground truth. Intuitively, viscosity increase the number of gurus that can affect the election by making it harder for voters to amass large amounts of power.
In contexts where there is a joint decision making objective and voter delegation, the use of viscosity should be strongly considered - it may provide up to 10\%-20\% improvement in accuracy over standard liquid democracy.
%It actually induces a lower variance while making sure that we can actually enjoy the benefits of \textit{Condorcet Jury Theorem} because it balances the weight distribution among the active voters, while also allowing us to enjoy the benefits of delegation and therefore reducing the attention cost by the community.
\section{Outlook}
\label{section:outlook}
Our results show that viscosity improves decision-making ability which opens up several avenues for future research on why viscosity is useful and how to use this knowledge.
\begin{itemize}
\item
\textbf{Evaluating viscous democracy in other settings}:
%
Here we concentrated on a simple epistemic model of elections in which the decision to be made is binary. Evaluating the improvement from viscous democracy in more involved settings is important. Many settings remain open for exploration, such as multi-winner elections and more subjective settings where there is no ground truth.
% Specifically, regarding the decision to be made, we wish to consider single-winner elections, multi-winner elections, as well as Euclidean settings; and, regarding the democratic setting we wish to consider also subjective settings without a ground truth.
\item
\textbf{Developing practical tools for viscous democracy}:
%
We have shown that viscosity typically improves delegation performance. Practically, developing tools that can efficiently predict the values of $\alpha^*$ across different settings is important. Various machine learning and optimization techniques may prove valuable for this task.
\end{itemize}
% \bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
% \bibliography{bibliography}
\bibliographystyle{named}
\bibliography{bibliography}
\newpage
\clearpage
\appendix
\section{Delegation Functions}
\label{appendix:delegation_function_descriptions}
\begin{itemize}
\item
\textbf{Max}:
%
Each delegating voter $v_i$ delegates to their most competent neighbour.
\[
p^\text{max}(v_i, v_j) = \begin{cases}
1 & q_j = \argmax_j \in \{q_j \in Q | (i, j) \in E\} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
\item
\textbf{Random Better}:
%
Each delegating voter, $v_i$, selects one of their neighbours uniformly at random from the set of neighbours with higher competence. That is, $v_i$ delegates to a random voter from the set $N^{+}_G\brackets{i}$ where:
\[
N^{+}_G(i) = \left\{j\in V \mid (i,j)\in E\;, \; q_j > q_i \right\}
\]
%
\[
p^\text{rand\_better}(v_i, v_j) = \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{|N^+(v_i)|} & j \in N^+(v_i) \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
\item
\textbf{Proportional Better}:
%
Delegators delegate to a neighbour with higher competence, however, the chance of delegating to a neighbour is directly correlated with the difference between their guru's competence and that of the delegator.
\[
p^\text{prop\_better}(v_i, v_j) \propto \begin{cases}
\frac{q_{d^*(j)} - q_i}{\sum_{v_k \in N^+(v_i)} q_{d^*(k)}-q_i } & j \in N^+(v_i) \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
\item
\textbf{Proportional Weighted}:
%
Delegation probabilities are based on both the competence difference between delegator and delegatee, as well as the weight of the representative ultimately being delegated to. A lower weight leads to a higher delegation probability.
\[
p^\text{prop\_weighted}(v_i, v_j) \propto \begin{cases}
\clubsuit & j \in N^+(v_i) \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
%
where $\clubsuit := \frac{1}{w_{d^*(j)}} \frac{q_{d^*(j)} - q_i}{\sum_{v_k \in N^+(v_i)} q_{d^*(k)}-q_i }$.
\end{itemize}
\section{Estimating $\alpha^*$}
\label{appendix:estimating_optimal_alpha}
% \begin{algorithm}[h!]
% \caption{Estimating $\alpha^*$ with sampling}
% \label{alg: estimating-alpha*}
% \raggedright
% \textbf{Input : $D, Q, \ell, k$}
% \begin{algorithmic}[1]
% \STATE Select a set $\mathrm{A}$ of $\ell$ evenly spaced points on the interval $[0, 1]$.
% % \STATE Set $\alpha^s$ to a default value of 1.
% \STATE $\alpha^s \gets 1$
% \STATE For each $\alpha_t \in \mathrm{A}$, compute $k$ estimations of group accuracy (that is, independently estimate group accuracy $k$ times using $1000$ Monte Carlo trials each).
% \STATE Compute $\mu_t$ and $\sigma_t$ of the $k$ accuracy estimates for $\alpha_t$.
% \STATE For each $\alpha_t \in \mathrm{A}$, if $\mu_t - \sigma_t > \mu_s + \sigma_s$ then set $s \leftarrow t$.
% \end{algorithmic}
% \end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[h!]
\caption{Estimating $\alpha^*$}
\label{alg:algorithm_opt_alpha}
\raggedright
\textbf{Input}: $t, k, Q, D$
\begin{algorithmic}[1] %[1] enables line numbers
\STATE $\alpha^*, \mu_{\text{max}}, \sigma_{\text{max}} \gets 1, 1, 1$
\STATE $A \gets t$ points sampled evenly from $[0, 1]$
\FOR{$a_t \in A$}
\STATE $\alpha \gets a_t$
\FOR{$i \in 0..k$}
\STATE $acc_{t,i} \gets Acc(\alpha, Q, D)$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $\mu_t, \sigma_t \gets \text{mean}(acc_{t, -}), \text{st. dev.}(acc_{t, -})$
\IF{$\mu_t - \sigma_t > \mu_{\text{max}} + \sigma_{\text{max}}$}
\STATE $\alpha^*, \mu_{\text{max}}, \sigma_{\text{max}} \gets \alpha, \mu_t, \sigma_t$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
% \STATE $E \gets \emptyset$
% \STATE $D \gets (V, E)$
% \WHILE {$S\neq V$}
% \STATE Select one voter $v_i\in V\setminus S$ uniformly at random.
% \STATE Select one voter $v_j \in S$ with probability proportional to its relative competence; $P(v_j) \propto \frac{q_j}{\Sum{v_k\in S}{}q_k}$
% % \STATE \textbf{Attach:} Add an edge $(v_i, v_j)$ to $E$.
% \STATE \textbf{Attach:} $E \gets E\cup (v_i, v_j)$.
% \STATE \textbf{Update}: $S \gets S\cup \set{v_i}$.
% % \STATE \textbf{Update}: $V \gets V\setminus \set{v_i}$.
% \ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\newpage
% \clearpage
\section{Description of Real-World Networks}
\label{appendix:real_world_networks}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Network} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Nodes} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Edges} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Source} \\ \midrule
celegans & 296 & 2359 & \cite{watts1998collective} \\
dolphins & 62 & 159 & \cite{lusseau2003bottlenose} \\
email & 1133 & 10903 & \cite{guimera2003self} \\
jazz & 198 & 5484 & \cite{gleiser2003community} \\
netscience & 1589 & 2700 & \cite{newman2006finding} \\
karate & 34 & 78 & \cite{zachary1977information} \\
lesmis & 77 & 254 & \cite{knuth1993stanford} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The real-world networks used in our analysis.}
\label{figure:realworldnetworks}
\end{table}
% \clearpage
\section{Supplemental Experiment Results}
\label{appendix:experiment_results}
\subsection{Distribution of Optimal $\alpha^*$}
\label{appendix:experiment_results-heatmaps}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/aggregate_BA.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 300 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are on a 100 voter Barabási–Albert network with $m=10$ which is randomly regenerated at each trial.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_ba_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/real_world_networks/celegansneural.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 30 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are shown for the \textbf{celegansneural} network.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_celegansneural_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/real_world_networks/dolphins.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 30 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are shown for the \textbf{dolphins} network.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_dolphins_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/real_world_networks/email.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 30 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are shown for the \textbf{email} network.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_email_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/real_world_networks/jazz.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 30 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are shown for the \textbf{jazz} network.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_jazz_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/real_world_networks/karate.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 30 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are shown for the \textbf{karate} network.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_karate_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/real_world_networks/lesmis.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 30 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are shown for the \textbf{lesmis} network.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_lesmis_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/optimal_alpha_heatmaps/real_world_networks/netscience.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\alpha^*$ across competence distributions and delegation mechanisms. 30 trials were performed for each mean voter competence value. Each cell shows the fraction of trials at each mean competence value in which the corresponding $\alpha$ value is optimal. Results are shown for the \textbf{netscience} network.}
\label{fig:opt_alpha_netscience_heatmap}
\end{figure*}
\clearpage
\newpage
\subsection{Accuracy Improvement from $\alpha^*$}
\label{appendix:experimental_results-accuracy_improvement}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/improvement_from_alpha/improve_from_alpha-random_better.png}
\caption{Accuracy improvement from using optimal viscosity vs no viscosity ($\alpha = 1$) for voters on random graph models delegating using the \textbf{Random Better} mechanism. Results are averaged over 30 trials with 100 voters per experiment.}
\label{fig:improvement_from_alpha-random_better}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/improvement_from_alpha/improve_from_alpha-proportional_better.png}
\caption{Accuracy improvement from using optimal viscosity vs no viscosity ($\alpha = 1$) for voters on random graph models delegating using the \textbf{Proportional Better} mechanism. Results are averaged over 30 trials with 100 voters per experiment.}
\label{fig:improvement_from_alpha-proportional_better}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/improvement_from_alpha/improve_from_alpha-proportional_weighted.png}
\caption{Accuracy improvement from using optimal viscosity vs no viscosity ($\alpha = 1$) for voters on random graph models delegating using the \textbf{Proportional Weighted} mechanism. Results are averaged over 30 trials with 100 voters per experiment.}
\label{fig:improvement_from_alpha-proportional_weighted}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\subsection{Feature Importance}
\label{appendix:feature_importance}
We used a Random Forest regression model to explore whether any features of an election were predictive of $\alpha^*$. We assembled values of the features listed below along with their corresponding $\alpha^*$. These values were used to train a sci-kit learn RandomForestRegressor model \cite{scikit-learn} which reached an $R^2$ value of approximately 0.6, indicating the features had some predictive power but very little. We then computed the relative importance of each feature in the model, shown in \autoref{fig:feature importance}. Mean voter competence is most predictive of $\alpha^*$ and has an inverse relationship: Higher mean competence loosely indicates a lower value of $\alpha^*$.
The features used in this regression are described below:
\begin{itemize}
\item Chain Length Gini - For each guru, measure the distance from the guru to each of its delegators. Take the Gini index of all these lengths.
\item Grofman Distance - The $\ell2$ distance of the current weight distribution of the gurus compared to the ideal $w_i\sim log\brackets{\frac{q_i}{1-q_i}}$ (see \cite{grofman1983thirteen}).
\item Guru Weight Gini - The Gini index of the guru weights.
\item Mean Competence - The mean of the underlying competence distribution.
\item Network Type - Possible values: BA and ER.
\item Competence Distribution - Possible values: Uniform, Gaussian or Exponential.
\item Delegation Mechanism - Possible values: Max, Proportional Better, Random Better, Proportional Weighted.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{images/feature_importances_preliminary-high_competence.png}
\caption{Here we plotted the feature importance given a classification of $\alpha$ using random forest from the previous experiments in \autoref{sec:experiments}.}
\label{fig:feature importance}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Albert and Barab{\'a}si}{2002}]{albert2002statistical}
R{\'e}ka Albert and Albert-L{\'a}szl{\'o} Barab{\'a}si.
\newblock Statistical mechanics of complex networks.
\newblock {\em Reviews of modern physics}, 74(1):47, 2002.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Alouf-Heffetz \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2022}]{alouf2022should}
Shiri Alouf-Heffetz, Ben Armstrong, Kate Larson, and Nimrod Talmon.
\newblock How should we vote? a comparison of voting systems within social networks.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of IJCAI '22}, pages 31--38, 2022.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Battiston \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2020}]{battiston2020networks}
Federico Battiston, Giulia Cencetti, Iacopo Iacopini, Vito Latora, Maxime Lucas, Alice Patania, Jean-Gabriel Young, and Giovanni Petri.
\newblock Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics.
\newblock {\em Physics Reports}, 874:1--92, 2020.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Becker \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2021}]{becker2021can}
Ruben Becker, Gianlorenzo D'Angelo, Esmaeil Delfaraz, and Hugo Gilbert.
\newblock When can liquid democracy unveil the truth?
\newblock {\em CoRR}, abs/2104.01828, 2021.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Berkhin}{2005}]{berkhin2005survey}
Pavel Berkhin.
\newblock A survey on pagerank computing.
\newblock {\em Internet mathematics}, 2(1):73--120, 2005.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bloembergen \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2019}]{bloembergen2019rational}
Daan Bloembergen, Davide Grossi, and Martin Lackner.
\newblock On rational delegations in liquid democracy.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of AAAI '19'}, volume~33, pages 1796--1803, 2019.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blum and Zuber}{2016}]{blum2016liquid}
Christian Blum and Christina~Isabel Zuber.
\newblock Liquid democracy: Potentials, problems, and perspectives.
\newblock {\em Journal of Political Philosophy}, 24(2):162--182, 2016.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Boldi \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2011}]{boldi2011viscous}
Paolo Boldi, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, and Sebastiano Vigna.
\newblock Viscous democracy for social networks.
\newblock {\em Communications of the ACM}, 54(6):129--137, 2011.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Boldi \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2015}]{boldi2015liquid}
Paolo Boldi, Corrado Monti, Massimo Santini, and Sebastiano Vigna.
\newblock Liquid fm: recommending music through viscous democracy.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.08604}, 2015.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brill and Talmon}{2018}]{brill2018pairwise}
Markus Brill and Nimrod Talmon.
\newblock Pairwise liquid democracy.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of IJCAI '18}, volume~18, pages 137--143, 2018.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Burkardt}{2014}]{burkardt2014truncated}
John Burkardt.
\newblock The truncated normal distribution.
\newblock {\em Department of Scientific Computing Website, Florida State University}, pages 1--35, 2014.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Caragiannis and Micha}{2019}]{caragiannis2019contribution}
Ioannis Caragiannis and Evi Micha.
\newblock A contribution to the critique of liquid democracy.
\newblock In {\em IJCAI}, pages 116--122, 2019.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dey \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2021}]{dey2021parameterized}
Palash Dey, Arnab Maiti, and Amatya Sharma.
\newblock On parameterized complexity of liquid democracy.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of CALDAM '21}, pages 83--94, 2021.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Erdos \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{1960}]{erdos1960evolution}
Paul Erdos, Alfr{\'e}d R{\'e}nyi, et~al.
\newblock On the evolution of random graphs.
\newblock {\em Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci}, 5(1):17--60, 1960.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Escoffier \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2019}]{escoffier2019convergence}
Bruno Escoffier, Hugo Gilbert, and Ad{\`e}le Pass-Lanneau.
\newblock The convergence of iterative delegations in liquid democracy in a social network.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of SAGT '19}, pages 284--297, 2019.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gleiser and Danon}{2003}]{gleiser2003community}
Pablo~M Gleiser and Leon Danon.
\newblock Community structure in jazz.
\newblock {\em Advances in complex systems}, 6(04):565--573, 2003.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gonzalez}{1985}]{GONZALEZ1985293}
Teofilo~F. Gonzalez.
\newblock Clustering to minimize the maximum intercluster distance.
\newblock {\em Theoretical Computer Science}, 38:293--306, 1985.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Green-Armytage}{2015}]{green2015direct}
James Green-Armytage.
\newblock Direct voting and proxy voting.
\newblock {\em Constitutional Political Economy}, 26:190--220, 2015.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Grofman \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{1983}]{grofman1983thirteen}
Bernard Grofman, Guillermo Owen, and Scott~L Feld.
\newblock Thirteen theorems in search of the truth.
\newblock {\em Theory and decision}, 15(3):261--278, 1983.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Guimera \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2003}]{guimera2003self}
Roger Guimera, Leon Danon, Albert Diaz-Guilera, Francesc Giralt, and Alex Arenas.
\newblock Self-similar community structure in a network of human interactions.
\newblock {\em Physical review E}, 68(6):065103, 2003.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Halpern \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2021}]{halpern2021defense}
Daniel Halpern, Joseph~Y Halpern, Ali Jadbabaie, Elchanan Mossel, Ariel~D Procaccia, and Manon Revel.
\newblock In defense of liquid democracy.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.11868}, 2021.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hassan and De~Filippi}{2021}]{hassan2021decentralized}
Samer Hassan and Primavera De~Filippi.
\newblock Decentralized autonomous organization.
\newblock {\em Internet Policy Review}, 10(2):1--10, 2021.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jain \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2022}]{jain2022preserving}
Pallavi Jain, Krzysztof Sornat, and Nimrod Talmon.
\newblock Preserving consistency for liquid knapsack voting.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of ECAI '22}, pages 221--238, 2022.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kahng \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2021}]{kahng2021liquid}
Anson Kahng, Simon Mackenzie, and Ariel Procaccia.
\newblock Liquid democracy: An algorithmic perspective.
\newblock {\em Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research}, 70:1223--1252, 2021.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kleinberg}{2010}]{Kleinberg-networks-book}
Jon Kleinberg.
\newblock Ect volume 26 issue 5 cover and back matter.
\newblock {\em Econometric Theory}, 26(5):b1–b4, 2010.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Knuth}{1993}]{knuth1993stanford}
Donald~Ervin Knuth.
\newblock {\em The Stanford GraphBase: a platform for combinatorial computing}, volume~1.
\newblock AcM Press New York, 1993.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lusseau \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2003}]{lusseau2003bottlenose}
David Lusseau, Karsten Schneider, Oliver~J Boisseau, Patti Haase, Elisabeth Slooten, and Steve~M Dawson.
\newblock The bottlenose dolphin community of doubtful sound features a large proportion of long-lasting associations: can geographic isolation explain this unique trait?
\newblock {\em Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology}, 54:396--405, 2003.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{May}{1952}]{may1952set}
Kenneth~O May.
\newblock A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision.
\newblock {\em Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society}, pages 680--684, 1952.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Newman}{2006}]{newman2006finding}
Mark~EJ Newman.
\newblock Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices.
\newblock {\em Physical review E}, 74(3):036104, 2006.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Paulin}{2020}]{paulin2020overview}
Alois Paulin.
\newblock An overview of ten years of liquid democracy research.
\newblock In {\em DG.O '20}, pages 116--121, 2020.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pedregosa \bgroup \em et al.\egroup }{2011}]{scikit-learn}
F.~Pedregosa, G.~Varoquaux, A.~Gramfort, V.~Michel, B.~Thirion, O.~Grisel, M.~Blondel, P.~Prettenhofer, R.~Weiss, V.~Dubourg, J.~Vanderplas, A.~Passos, D.~Cournapeau, M.~Brucher, M.~Perrot, and E.~Duchesnay.
\newblock Scikit-learn: Machine learning in {P}ython.
\newblock {\em Journal of Machine Learning Research}, 12:2825--2830, 2011.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shapiro}{2018}]{shapiro2018point}
Ehud Shapiro.
\newblock Point: foundations of e-democracy.
\newblock {\em Communications of the ACM}, 61(8):31--34, 2018.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Watts and Strogatz}{1998}]{watts1998collective}
Duncan~J Watts and Steven~H Strogatz.
\newblock Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks.
\newblock {\em nature}, 393(6684):440--442, 1998.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zachary}{1977}]{zachary1977information}
Wayne~W Zachary.
\newblock An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups.
\newblock {\em Journal of anthropological research}, 33(4):452--473, 1977.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zhang and Grossi}{2021}]{zhang2021power}
Yuzhe Zhang and Davide Grossi.
\newblock Power in liquid democracy.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings AAAI '21}, volume~35, pages 5822--5830, 2021.
\end{thebibliography}