Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Heterogeneous participation and allocation skews: when is choice "worth it"?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Mechanisms that ask citizens for preferences allocate public resources to those best able to participate, so designers should keep the information but guarantee nonparticipants a sufficient default.

desk verdict A clear, honest agenda-setting essay on heterogeneous participation in EconCS mechanisms; the framing is valuable, but the causal claim that participation gaps reflect burdens rather than preferences is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03600 v1 pith:RLQCJXDT submitted 2025-07-04 cs.CY econ.GNq-fin.EC

Nikhil Garg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYecon.GNq-fin.EC
keywords heterogeneousparticipationmechanismdesignparticipatorybudgetingschoolchoiceresidentcrowdsourcingallocationequityadministrativeburdendefaultoptions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether mechanisms that elicit preferences and information from citizens—participatory budgeting, citizen assemblies, resident crowdsourcing, and school matching—are worth deploying when participation is unequal. It argues that, even when participation is free of monetary cost, those who are already advantaged are better able to pay time costs and navigate administrative burdens, so the resulting allocation skews public resources toward them. The author's proposed remedy is a 'best of both worlds' north star: keep using the preferences and information of those who choose to participate, but guarantee a sufficient quality of service to those who do not. The paper draws on three case studies to show the pattern and outlines ways to reduce participation gaps and make mechanisms robust to them.

What carries the argument

The key object is the elicitation requirement at the core of these mechanisms: participants must invest time and effort to submit preferences or information, without any monetary cost. Because this cost falls unevenly, participation becomes a filtered sample of the population, and the mechanism's output inherits that filter. The paper's central design principle—use preferences from those who participate, but provide a 'sufficient' quality of service to those who do not—operates as a default-and-recommendation structure: it keeps the information advantage of participation while capping the penalty for nonparticipation.

What would settle it

A clean test would compare a deployed mechanism against a version with an automatic, high-quality default for nonparticipants: if participation gaps and allocation skews persist unchanged after the default is introduced, the paper's causal story would be falsified. Equivalently, a finding that under-reporting neighborhoods in crowdsourcing face no worse service outcomes than over-reporting ones, after controlling for objective conditions, would contradict the claimed skew.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the voluntary elicitation step—asking people to vote, submit service requests, or rank school choices—systematically selects for participants who have more time, information, and administrative capacity, and this selection is not neutral: it makes the mechanism less effective and skews allocation and decisionmaking against those already disadvantaged. The author argues this pattern appears across complex democratic mechanisms, resident crowdsourcing, and school matching, and that the field's default response of maximizing information aggregation without addressing participation is a policy choice, not a technical necessity. The proposed alternative is to make mechanisms robust to heterogeneous participation by combining elicited preferences with a reasonable, default allocation for nonparticipants, and to treat the tradeoff between information aggregation and allocation skews as an explicit design decision.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on nonparticipation being primarily the result of time costs, administrative burdens, and information gaps rather than of differences in preferences or need; if nonparticipants are simply not interested or not in need, then providing defaults for them would not improve allocation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Participatory budgeting and citizen assemblies should treat balanced participation or reweighting as a precondition for legitimate binding decisions.
  • Resident crowdsourcing should be paired with active inspection, sensors, or agency expertise in under-reporting neighborhoods, as happened when New York City stopped taking tree-planting requests and moved to heat-vulnerability-prioritized planting.
  • School matching should move from expecting families to submit informed ranked lists toward personalized recommendations, default placements, or shorter choice menus.
  • Mechanisms like food-bank allocation show that robustness to heterogeneous participation is achievable through fractional bidding, stored credits, and delegation of bidding to a central agent.
  • The choice between defending, reducing, reforming, or replacing a participatory mechanism should be made explicitly, rather than defaulting to maximal information aggregation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's 'sufficient quality of service' standard could be formalized as a floor constraint on the welfare of nonparticipants; choosing that floor is inherently a political decision.
  • If administrative burden is the main driver of participation gaps, universal auto-enrollment or pre-filled defaults should shrink those gaps more than targeted outreach; this is directly testable with take-up data.
  • The same logic transfers to private choice architectures such as health insurance or retirement plan enrollment, where defaults are already known to shape outcomes, suggesting that the paper's argument extends beyond public mechanisms.
  • Reweighting participant opinions by demographic representativeness, as the paper mentions for consultative processes, could be applied to crowdsourced reporting to correct spatial under-reporting before resource allocation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is an argumentative synthesis arguing that preference-elicitation mechanisms—participatory budgeting, citizen assemblies, resident crowdsourcing/311 systems, and school choice—induce heterogeneous participation along existing axes of advantage, and that this heterogeneity can skew public resource allocation against disadvantaged groups. It proposes a "best of both worlds" design principle: use preferences and information from those who do participate, but provide a "sufficient" quality of service to those who do not. It develops the argument through three case studies, includes a small illustrative regression (Fig. 1) showing that NYC tree-planting requests correlate positively with neighborhood income and negatively with a heat vulnerability index, and offers practical approaches (reducing participation heterogeneity, personalized defaults/recommendations, active information acquisition or post-processing) and research directions (empirical quantification, theoretical modeling, human-computer-market interaction).

Significance. If the thesis holds, it reframes a research agenda for Economics and Computation: instead of designing mechanisms that assume representative participation, the community should design mechanisms that are robust to heterogeneous participation. The paper's strengths are its breadth, its clear challenge to the community, its honest discussion of identification problems in Section 4.1, and its grounding in concrete recent empirical work, including the author's own studies that use ground-truth or duplicate-report designs (e.g., Liu et al. 2024a; Peng et al. 2025). It also offers a concrete, testable illustrative analysis in Fig. 1. The paper is not an empirical demonstration or a formal theoretical contribution; its value depends on whether the empirical anchors support the central inference. The main weaknesses are that the Fig. 1 analysis omits important controls, and that the policy recommendation leans on a causal reading of participation disparities that Section 4.1 acknowledges is not fully settled.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.2, Fig. 1] The regression presented in Fig. 1 does not, as it stands, support the strong conclusion that tree-planting requests 'correlate positively with neighborhood income and negatively with heat vulnerability' as evidence of allocative skew. The model includes only log population, log median income, and heat vulnerability index; it omits physical and regulatory controls such as existing tree stock, sidewalk availability, land-use mix, housing type, and the historical location of tree-planting programs. Because income and heat vulnerability are plausibly correlated with these omitted variables, the income coefficient could reflect request opportunity or pre-existing canopy rather than differential participation in a fair system. The figure also omits the number of observations, R-squared, standard error type, and variable definitions. This matters because the paper uses the analysis to explain NYC's policy reversal and to motivate the general claim that crowdsourcing skews allocation. I recommend either adding the missing controls and reporting full regression details, or reframing the figure as an illustrative correlation with the caveat that the identifying assumptions have not been established.
  2. [4.1, 2.3, 2.4] The paper's policy recommendation—that mechanisms should use participants' preferences but provide sufficient defaults for nonparticipants—presupposes that a substantial share of nonparticipation is caused by time costs, administrative burdens, and information gaps rather than by differences in preferences, need, or outside options. Section 4.1 explicitly states that 'quantifying participation heterogeneity often requires disambiguating it from other, less concerning, explanations' and that this 'challenge often requires new statistical methods, analyzing natural experiments, or careful collection of ground truth data.' Yet Sections 2.4 and 5 present the skew as an established fact and base a general reform agenda on it. The paper should either marshal the specific studies that meet this identification standard (e.g., the ground-truth comparisons in the crowdsourcing literature and the survey-based preference analysis of Corradini and Idoux 2025) and clearly state which cases remain unresolved, or weaken the conclusion to a conditional claim. As written, the load-bearing inference from observed participation correlations to cost-induced nonparticipation is under-supported.
  3. [1, 5] The title and abstract promise an answer to 'when is choice worth it?', but the paper does not provide an operational decision criterion. 'Sufficient' quality of service and 'reasonable' defaults are explicitly acknowledged as subjective, and no formal tradeoff between information aggregation and allocation skew is proposed. The closest is a call for future theoretical modeling (Section 4.2), which is appropriate for a research agenda, but the paper should be clearer that it is not answering the quantitative version of its title question. I suggest adding a brief section that states the conditions under which elicitation is worth retaining (e.g., when the variance in preferences exceeds the variance due to participation), and when replacement is preferable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.1] The city name 'Porte Alegro' should be 'Porto Alegre'.
  2. [3.3] The phrase 'best of both words' should be 'best of both worlds'.
  3. [Figure 1] The figure caption and table should state the unit of observation (ZCTA), the years covered, the source of each variable, and the number of observations; currently '2015-2024' appears only in the caption and the coefficient table lacks N and R-squared.
  4. [3.2] The claim that 'stronger user interfaces or nudges are important' would benefit from a pointer to the concrete HCI evidence described in Section 4.3, otherwise it reads as an unsupported assertion.
  5. [3.1, 3.2] The spelling 'targetted' appears twice; the standard spelling is 'targeted'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the essay advances an evidence-based argument from independent empirical studies, with acknowledged limitations, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This paper is a perspective essay rather than a formal derivation. Its central claim—that heterogeneous participation in preference-eliciting mechanisms skews allocations against disadvantaged groups—is supported by three case studies drawing on published empirical work, including the author's own (e.g., Liu et al. 2024a; Peng et al. 2025). These are independent, externally published studies with their own data and methods, so citing them is not circular. The paper makes no fitted parameter that is later called a prediction, invokes no uniqueness theorem imported from the author's prior work, and adopts no ansatz by citation. The original regression in Fig. 1 is explicitly presented as a simple descriptive analysis ('A simple analysis using public data helps explains why'), not as a derived prediction, and its limitations are not concealed: Section 4.1 concedes that separating heterogeneous conditions/preferences from participation effects 'often requires new statistical methods, analyzing natural experiments, or careful collection of “ground truth” data.' The recommended 'best of both worlds' design goal is a normative proposal, not a theorem derived from its own assumptions. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The essay is a synthesis, so it introduces no fitted model of its own beyond the illustrative Fig. 1 regression. Its main assumptions are normative (allocation equity matters) and evidentiary (the cited studies measure participation gaps reliably).

free parameters (1)
  • Fig. 1 regression coefficients for tree planting requests = Intercept -13720, log income 472, heat vulnerability -149
    Illustrative ordinary regression of NYC 311 tree planting requests on neighborhood income and heat vulnerability. Lacks standard errors and full specification; the exact values are not load-bearing for the essay's thesis beyond their signs.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Allocation skews against already disadvantaged groups are a legitimate design concern.
    Invoked throughout, for example in sections 2.4 and 5, where 'sufficient' quality is called a policy choice and equity is treated as a primary goal.
  • domain assumption Cited empirical studies accurately measure participation heterogeneity and its correlates.
    The essay leans on its reference list in sections 2.1 to 2.3 rather than re-analyzing primary data, so the factual premise depends on the validity of those studies.
  • domain assumption Time costs and administrative burdens of participation are avoidable rather than intrinsic to the mechanisms.
    The reform agenda in section 3 assumes that redesign (defaults, targeting, post-processing) can shift participation or protect non-participants, which requires that the observed gaps are not fixed by unchanging preferences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heterogeneous participation and allocation skews: when is choice "worth it"?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLQCJXDT

@misc{pith2026250703600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heterogeneous participation and allocation skews: when is choice "worth it"?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLQCJXDT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03600}
}
read the original abstract

A core ethos of the Economics and Computation (EconCS) community is that people have complex private preferences and information of which the central planner is unaware, but which an appropriately designed mechanism can uncover to improve collective decisionmaking. This ethos underlies the community's largest deployed success stories, from stable matching systems to participatory budgeting. I ask: is this choice and information aggregation ``worth it''? In particular, I discuss how such systems induce \textit{heterogeneous participation}: those already relatively advantaged are, empirically, more able to pay time costs and navigate administrative burdens imposed by the mechanisms. I draw on three case studies, including my own work -- complex democratic mechanisms, resident crowdsourcing, and school matching. I end with lessons for practice and research, challenging the community to help reduce participation heterogeneity and design and deploy mechanisms that meet a ``best of both worlds'' north star: \textit{use preferences and information from those who choose to participate, but provide a ``sufficient'' quality of service to those who do not.}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In NYC, the number of tree planting requests by ZIP Code Tabulation Area in 2015-2024. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION article output.bibitem format.authors "author" output.check author format.key output output.year.check new.block format.title "title" output.check new.block crossref missing format.jour.vol output format.article.crossref output.nonnull format.pages output if new.block note output fin.entry FUNCTION b...

  2. [2]

    The New York City High School Match

    Atila Abdulkadiroğlu, Parag A Pathak, and Alvin E Roth. The New York City High School Match . American Economic Review, 95 0 (2): 0 364--367, April 2005. ISSN 0002-8282. doi:10.1257/000282805774670167. URL https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/000282805774670167

    doi:10.1257/000282805774670167 2005

  3. [3]

    Roles for computing in social change

    Rediet Abebe, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, Karen Levy, Manish Raghavan, and David G Robinson. Roles for computing in social change. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 252--260, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    Demand analysis using strategic reports: An application to a school choice mechanism

    Nikhil Agarwal and Paulo Somaini. Demand analysis using strategic reports: An application to a school choice mechanism. Econometrica, 86 0 (2): 0 391--444, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    A bayesian spatial model to correct under-reporting in urban crowdsourcing

    Gabriel Agostini, Emma Pierson, and Nikhil Garg. A bayesian spatial model to correct under-reporting in urban crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 21888--21896, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    School choice under imperfect information

    Kehinde Ajayi and Modibo Sidibe. School choice under imperfect information. Economic Research Initiatives at Duke (ERID) Working Paper, 0 (294), 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Designing school choice for diversity in the san francisco unified school district

    Maxwell Allman, Itai Ashlagi, Irene Lo, Juliette Love, Katherine Mentzer, Lulabel Ruiz-Setz, and Henry O'Connell. Designing school choice for diversity in the san francisco unified school district. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 290--291, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Smart matching platforms and heterogeneous beliefs in centralized school choice*

    Felipe Arteaga, Adam J Kapor, Christopher A Neilson, and Seth D Zimmerman. Smart matching platforms and heterogeneous beliefs in centralized school choice*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137 0 (3): 0 1791--1848, 03 2022. ISSN 0033-5533. doi:10.1093/qje/qjac013. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac013

    doi:10.1093/qje/qjac013 2022

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Kidney exchange: An operations perspective

    Itai Ashlagi and Alvin E Roth. Kidney exchange: An operations perspective. Management Science, 67 0 (9): 0 5455--5478, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Alternates, assemble! selecting optimal alternates for citizens' assemblies

    Angelos Assos, Carmel Baharav, Bailey Flanigan, and Ariel Procaccia. Alternates, assemble! selecting optimal alternates for citizens' assemblies. Available at SSRN 5283438, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Fair, manipulation-robust, and transparent sortition

    Carmel Baharav and Bailey Flanigan. Fair, manipulation-robust, and transparent sortition. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 756--775, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Domain constraints improve risk prediction when outcome data is missing

    Sidhika Balachandar, Nikhil Garg, and Emma Pierson. Domain constraints improve risk prediction when outcome data is missing. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Urban incident prediction with graph neural networks: Integrating government ratings and crowdsourced reports

    Sidhika Balachandar, Shuvom Sadhuka, Bonnie Berger, Emma Pierson, and Nikhil Garg. Urban incident prediction with graph neural networks: Integrating government ratings and crowdsourced reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08740, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Shopping around: An experiment in preferences and incentives for placing long-term patients

    Vince Bartle, Nicki Dell, and Nikhil Garg. Shopping around: An experiment in preferences and incentives for placing long-term patients. 2025 a

    2025

  7. [15]

    Faster information for effective long-term discharge: A field study in adult foster care

    Vince Bartle, Ashley Shearer, Alexandra Wroe, Nicola Dell, and Nikhil Garg. Faster information for effective long-term discharge: A field study in adult foster care. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9 0 (2): 0 1--29, 2025 b

    2025

  8. [16]

    No stratification without representation

    Gerdus Benad \`e , Paul G \"o lz, and Ariel D Procaccia. No stratification without representation. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 281--314, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Fair allocation through selective information acquisition

    William Cai, Johann Gaebler, Nikhil Garg, and Sharad Goel. Fair allocation through selective information acquisition. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 22--28, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Structural estimation of a model of school choices: The boston mechanism versus its alternatives

    Caterina Calsamiglia, Chao Fu, and Maia Guell. Structural estimation of a model of school choices: The boston mechanism versus its alternatives. Journal of Political Economy, 128 0 (2): 0 642--680, February 2020. ISSN 0022-3808. doi:10.1086/704573

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Can a few decide for many? the metric distortion of sortition

    Ioannis Caragiannis, Evi Micha, and Jannik Peters. Can a few decide for many? the metric distortion of sortition. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey

    Simon Caton and Christian Haas. Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey . ACM Computing Surveys, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Representativeness in statistics, politics, and machine learning

    Kyla Chasalow and Karen Levy. Representativeness in statistics, politics, and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 77--89, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Why is my classifier discriminatory? Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    Irene Chen, Fredrik D Johansson, and David Sontag. Why is my classifier discriminatory? Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Beecy, Gabriel Sayer, Deborah Estrin, Nikhil Garg, and Emma Pierson

    Erica Chiang, Divya Shanmugan, Ashley N. Beecy, Gabriel Sayer, Deborah Estrin, Nikhil Garg, and Emma Pierson. Learning Disease Progression Models That Capture Health Disparities . In Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning (CHIL `25), June 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    When Do Informational Interventions Work ? Experimental Evidence from New York City High School Choice

    Sarah R Cohodes, Sean P Corcoran, Jennifer L Jennings, and Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj. When Do Informational Interventions Work ? Experimental Evidence from New York City High School Choice . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, page 01623737231203293, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Leveling the playing field for high school choice: Results from a field experiment of informational interventions

    Sean P Corcoran, Jennifer L Jennings, Sarah R Cohodes, and Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj. Leveling the playing field for high school choice: Results from a field experiment of informational interventions. Working Paper 24471, National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2018. URL http:/...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Information and Access in School Choice Systems: Evidence from New York City

    Viola Corradini. Information and Access in School Choice Systems: Evidence from New York City . 2024. URL https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JMP_Corradini.pdf

    2024

  19. [27]

    Overcoming racial gaps in school preferences: The effect of peer diversity on school choice

    Viola Corradini and Clemence M Idoux. Overcoming racial gaps in school preferences: The effect of peer diversity on school choice. Technical report, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Addressing discretization-induced bias in demographic prediction

    Evan Dong, Aaron Schein, Yixin Wang, and Nikhil Garg. Addressing discretization-induced bias in demographic prediction. PNAS nexus, page pgaf027, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Boosting sortition via proportional representation

    Soroush Ebadian and Evi Micha. Boosting sortition via proportional representation. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS '25, page 667–675, Richland, SC, 2025. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and M...

    2025

  22. [30]

    Is sortition both representative and fair? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 3431--3443, 2022

    Soroush Ebadian, Gregory Kehne, Evi Micha, Ariel D Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. Is sortition both representative and fair? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 3431--3443, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Bridging machine learning and mechanism design towards algorithmic fairness

    Jessie Finocchiaro, Roland Maio, Faidra Monachou, Gourab K Patro, Manish Raghavan, Ana-Andreea Stoica, and Stratis Tsirtsis. Bridging machine learning and mechanism design towards algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and ...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Deliberative democracy with the online deliberation platform

    James Fishkin, Nikhil Garg, Lodewijk Gelauff, Ashish Goel, Kamesh Munagala, Sukolsak Sakshuwong, Alice Siu, and Sravya Yandamuri. Deliberative democracy with the online deliberation platform. In Demo at the 7th AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP 2019...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform

    James S Fishkin. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press, 1991

    1991

  26. [34]

    Neutralizing self-selection bias in sampling for sortition

    Bailey Flanigan, Paul G \"o lz, Anupam Gupta, and Ariel D Procaccia. Neutralizing self-selection bias in sampling for sortition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 6528--6539, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies

    Bailey Flanigan, Paul G \"o lz, Anupam Gupta, Brett Hennig, and Ariel D Procaccia. Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies. Nature, 596 0 (7873): 0 548--552, 2021 a

    2021

  28. [36]

    Fair sortition made transparent

    Bailey Flanigan, Gregory Kehne, and Ariel D Procaccia. Fair sortition made transparent. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 25720--25731. Curran Associates, ...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Mini-Public Selection: Ask What Randomness Can Do for You

    Bailey Flanigan, Paul G \"o lz, and Ariel Procaccia. Mini-Public Selection: Ask What Randomness Can Do for You. Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Procaccia, and Sven Wang

    Bailey Flanigan, Jennifer Liang, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Sven Wang. Manipulation-robust selection of citizens' assemblies. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 2024. ISBN 978-1-57735-887-9. doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i9.28827. UR...

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Bayesian modeling of zero-shot classifications for urban flood detection

    Matt Franchi, Nikhil Garg, Wendy Ju, and Emma Pierson. Bayesian modeling of zero-shot classifications for urban flood detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14754, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Designing optimal binary rating systems

    Nikhil Garg and Ramesh Johari. Designing optimal binary rating systems. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1930--1939. PMLR, 2019

    1930

  33. [41]

    Designing informative rating systems: Evidence from an online labor market

    Nikhil Garg and Ramesh Johari. Designing informative rating systems: Evidence from an online labor market. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 23 0 (3): 0 589--605, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Who is in your top three? optimizing learning in elections with many candidates

    Nikhil Garg, Lodewijk L Gelauff, Sukolsak Sakshuwong, and Ashish Goel. Who is in your top three? optimizing learning in elections with many candidates. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, volume 7, pages 22--31, 2019 a

    2019

  35. [43]

    Iterative local voting for collective decision-making in continuous spaces

    Nikhil Garg, Vijay Kamble, Ashish Goel, David Marn, and Kamesh Munagala. Iterative local voting for collective decision-making in continuous spaces. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 64: 0 315--355, 2019 b

    2019

  36. [44]

    Standardized tests and affirmative action: The role of bias and variance

    Nikhil Garg, Hannah Li, and Faidra Monachou. Standardized tests and affirmative action: The role of bias and variance. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 261--261, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Opinion change or differential turnout: Changing opinions on the austin police department in a budget feedback process

    Lodewijk Gelauff and Ashish Goel. Opinion change or differential turnout: Changing opinions on the austin police department in a budget feedback process. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract., 5 0 (3), September 2024 a . doi:10.1145/3664822. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3664822

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Rank, pack, or approve: Voting methods in participatory budgeting

    Lodewijk Gelauff and Ashish Goel. Rank, pack, or approve: Voting methods in participatory budgeting. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 18, pages 448--461, 2024 b

    2024

  39. [47]

    Comparing voting methods for budget decisions on the assu ballot

    Lodewijk Gelauff, Sukolsak Sakshuwong, Nikhil Garg, and Ashish Goel. Comparing voting methods for budget decisions on the assu ballot. Technical report, Technical report, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Advertising for demographically fair outcomes

    Lodewijk Gelauff, Ashish Goel, Kamesh Munagala, and Sravya Yandamuri. Advertising for demographically fair outcomes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03983, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting

    Ashish Goel, Anilesh K Krishnaswamy, Sukolsak Sakshuwong, and Tanja Aitamurto. Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), 7 0 (2): 0 1--27, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    The city council's participatory budgeting by the numbers

    Daniel Golliher. The city council's participatory budgeting by the numbers. Maximum New York, February 2025. URL https://www.maximumnewyork.com/p/the-city-councils-participatory-budgeting?open=false#

    2025

  43. [51]

    Republican gains in 2022 midterms driven mostly by turnout advantage, July 2023

    Hannah Hartig, Andrew Daniller, Scott Keeter, and Ted Van Green . Republican gains in 2022 midterms driven mostly by turnout advantage, July 2023. URL https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/

    2022

  44. [52]

    Immigrant engagement in participatory budgeting in new york city

    Ron Hayduk, Kristen Hackett, and Diana Tamashiro Folla. Immigrant engagement in participatory budgeting in new york city. New Political Science, 39 0 (1): 0 76--94, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means

    Pamela Herd and Donald P Moynihan. Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Testing the participation hypothesis: Evidence from participatory budgeting

    Carolina Johnson, H Jacob Carlson, and Sonya Reynolds. Testing the participation hypothesis: Evidence from participatory budgeting. Political Behavior, 45 0 (1): 0 3--32, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    The international refugee match: A system that respects refugees’ preferences and the priorities of states

    Will Jones and Alexander Teytelboym. The international refugee match: A system that respects refugees’ preferences and the priorities of states. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 36 0 (2): 0 84--109, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    School choice with asymmetric information: Priority design and the curse of acceptance

    Andrew Kloosterman and Peter Troyan. School choice with asymmetric information: Priority design and the curse of acceptance. Theoretical Economics, 15 0 (3): 0 1095--1133, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Popular support for balancing equity and efficiency in resource allocation: A case study in online advertising to increase welfare program awareness

    Allison Koenecke, Eric Giannella, Robb Willer, and Sharad Goel. Popular support for balancing equity and efficiency in resource allocation: A case study in online advertising to increase welfare program awareness. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and ...

    2023

  50. [58]

    College application mistakes and the design of information policies at scale

    Tom \'a s Larroucau, Ignacio Rios, Ana \" s Fabre, and Christopher Neilson. College application mistakes and the design of information policies at scale. 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Ending affirmative action harms diversity without improving academic merit

    Jinsook Lee, Emma Harvey, Joyce Zhou, Nikhil Garg, Thorsten Joachims, and Ren \'e F Kizilcec. Ending affirmative action harms diversity without improving academic merit. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, ...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Deliberative polling on constitutional amendments in mongolia

    Susan Lee. Deliberative polling on constitutional amendments in mongolia. Technical report, Global Assembly, 2024. URL https://democracyrd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PDF-Guia3-Case-Studies-1-Mongolia.pdf

    2024

  53. [61]

    Test-optional policies: Overcoming strategic behavior and informational gaps

    Zhi Liu and Nikhil Garg. Test-optional policies: Overcoming strategic behavior and informational gaps. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, pages 1--13, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Redesigning service level agreements: Equity and efficiency in city government operations

    Zhi Liu and Nikhil Garg. Redesigning service level agreements: Equity and efficiency in city government operations. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 309--309, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Quantifying spatial under-reporting disparities in resident crowdsourcing

    Zhi Liu, Uma Bhandaram, and Nikhil Garg. Quantifying spatial under-reporting disparities in resident crowdsourcing. Nature Computational Science, 4 0 (1): 0 57--65, 2024 a

    2024

  56. [64]

    Identifying and addressing disparities in public libraries with bayesian latent variable modeling

    Zhi Liu, Sarah Rankin, and Nikhil Garg. Identifying and addressing disparities in public libraries with bayesian latent variable modeling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 22258--22265, 2024 b

    2024

  57. [65]

    Optimizing library usage and browser experience: Application to the new york public library

    Zhi Liu, Wenchang Zhu, Sarah Rankin, and Nikhil Garg. Optimizing library usage and browser experience: Application to the new york public library. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23118, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Coarse race data conceals disparities in clinical risk score performance

    Rajiv Movva, Divya Shanmugam, Kaihua Hou, Priya Pathak, John Guttag, Nikhil Garg, and Emma Pierson. Coarse race data conceals disparities in clinical risk score performance. In Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference, pages 443--472. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Scarcity: Why having too little means so much

    Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir. Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Macmillan, 2013

    2013

  60. [68]

    Heat vulnerability index rankings, 2024

    New York City . Heat vulnerability index rankings, 2024. Available at: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Health/Heat-Vulnerability-Index-Rankings/4mhf-duep; Accessed: May 16, 2025

    2024

  61. [69]

    311 service requests from 2010 to present, 2025 a

    New York City . 311 service requests from 2010 to present, 2025 a . Available at: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Social-Services/311-Service-Requests-from-2010-to-Present/erm2-nwe9; Accessed: May 16, 2025

    2010

  62. [70]

    Tree planting, 2025 b

    New York City . Tree planting, 2025 b . Available at: https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-01895, Accessed: May 16, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    Active fairness in algorithmic decision making

    Alejandro Noriega-Campero, Michiel A Bakker, Bernardo Garcia-Bulle, and Alex'Sandy' Pentland. Active fairness in algorithmic decision making. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 77--83, 2019

    2019

  64. [72]

    Recoding America: why government is failing in the digital age and how we can do better

    Jennifer Pahlka. Recoding America: why government is failing in the digital age and how we can do better. Metropolitan Books, 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    Leveling the playing field: Sincere and sophisticated players in the boston mechanism

    Parag A Pathak and Tayfun S \"o nmez. Leveling the playing field: Sincere and sophisticated players in the boston mechanism. American Economic Review, 98 0 (4): 0 1636--1652, 2008

    2008

  66. [74]

    Deviations from reach-match-safety strategies explain undermatching disparities in new york city high schools

    Kenny Peng, Emily Ryu, Jon Kleinberg, Eva Tardos, and Nikhil Garg. Deviations from reach-match-safety strategies explain undermatching disparities in new york city high schools. 2025

    2025

  67. [75]

    Difficult lessons on social prediction from wisconsin public schools

    Juan C Perdomo, Tolani Britton, Moritz Hardt, and Rediet Abebe. Difficult lessons on social prediction from wisconsin public schools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06205, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    How food banks use markets to feed the poor

    Canice Prendergast. How food banks use markets to feed the poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31 0 (4): 0 145--162, 2017

    2017

  69. [77]

    The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics

    Alvin E Roth. The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics. Econometrica, 70 0 (4): 0 1341--1378, 2002

    2002

  70. [78]

    Power to the public: The promise of public interest technology

    Hana Schank and Tara Dawson McGuinness. Power to the public: The promise of public interest technology. Princeton University Press, 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    Robust allocations with diversity constraints

    Zeyu Shen, Lodewijk Gelauff, Ashish Goel, Aleksandra Korolova, and Kamesh Munagala. Robust allocations with diversity constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 2021

    2021

  72. [80]

    Guiding school-choice reform through novel applications of operations research

    Peng Shi. Guiding school-choice reform through novel applications of operations research. Interfaces, 45 0 (2): 0 117--132, 2015

    2015

  73. [81]

    Allocation requires prediction only if inequality is low

    Ali Shirali, Rediet Abebe, and Moritz Hardt. Allocation requires prediction only if inequality is low. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13882, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Does participatory budgeting change the share of public funding to low income neighborhoods? Public Budgeting & Finance, 39 0 (1): 0 45--66, 2019

    Iuliia Shybalkina and Robert Bifulco. Does participatory budgeting change the share of public funding to low income neighborhoods? Public Budgeting & Finance, 39 0 (1): 0 45--66, 2019

    2019

  75. [83]

    Participatory budgeting in the united states: a preliminary analysis of chicago's 49th ward experiment

    LaShonda M Stewart, Steven A Miller, RW Hildreth, and Maja V Wright-Phillips. Participatory budgeting in the united states: a preliminary analysis of chicago's 49th ward experiment. New Political Science, 36 0 (2): 0 193--218, 2014

    2014

  76. [84]

    Showing high-achieving college applicants past admissions outcomes increases undermatching

    Sabina Tomkins, Joshua Grossman, Lindsay Page, and Sharad Goel. Showing high-achieving college applicants past admissions outcomes increases undermatching. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 0 (45): 0 e2306017120, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    Against predictive optimization: On the legitimacy of decision-making algorithms that optimize predictive accuracy

    Angelina Wang, Sayash Kapoor, Solon Barocas, and Arvind Narayanan. Against predictive optimization: On the legitimacy of decision-making algorithms that optimize predictive accuracy. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing, 1 0 (1): 0 1--45, 2024

    2024

  78. [86]

    Participatory budgeting without participants: Identifying barriers on accessibility and usage of german participatory budgeting

    Robert Zepic, Marcus Dapp, and Helmut Krcmar. Participatory budgeting without participants: Identifying barriers on accessibility and usage of german participatory budgeting. In 2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM), pages 26--35. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  79. [87]

    Race adjustments in clinical algorithms can help correct for racial disparities in data quality

    Anna Zink, Ziad Obermeyer, and Emma Pierson. Race adjustments in clinical algorithms can help correct for racial disparities in data quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121 0 (34): 0 e2402267121, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.