  In the metric distortion problem there is a set of candidates and a set of
voters, all residing in the same metric space. The objective is to choose a
candidate with minimum social cost, defined as the total distance of the chosen
candidate from all voters. The challenge is that the algorithm receives only
ordinal input from each voter, in the form of a ranked list of candidates in
non-decreasing order of their distances from her, whereas the objective
function is cardinal. The distortion of an algorithm is its worst-case
approximation factor with respect to the optimal social cost. A series of
papers culminated in a 3-distortion algorithm, which is tight with respect to
all deterministic algorithms.
  Aiming to overcome the limitations of worst-case analysis, we revisit the
metric distortion problem through the learning-augmented framework, where the
algorithm is provided with some prediction regarding the optimal candidate. The
quality of this prediction is unknown, and the goal is to evaluate the
performance of the algorithm under a accurate prediction (known as
consistency), while simultaneously providing worst-case guarantees even for
arbitrarily inaccurate predictions (known as robustness).
  For our main result, we characterize the robustness-consistency Pareto
frontier for the metric distortion problem. We first identify an inevitable
trade-off between robustness and consistency. We then devise a family of
learning-augmented algorithms that achieves any desired robustness-consistency
pair on this Pareto frontier. Furthermore, we provide a more refined analysis
of the distortion bounds as a function of the prediction error (with
consistency and robustness being two extremes). Finally, we also prove
distortion bounds that integrate the notion of $\alpha$-decisiveness, which
quantifies the extent to which a voter prefers her favorite candidate relative
to the rest.
