Search

To understand and summarize approval preferences and other binary evaluation data, it is useful to order the items on an axis which explains the data. In a political election using approval voting, this could be an ideological left-right axis such that each voter approves adjacent candidates, an analogue of single-peakedness. In a perfect axis, every approval set would be an interval, which is usually not possible, and so we need to choose an axis that gets closest to this ideal. The literature has developed algorithms for optimizing several objective functions (e.g., minimize the number of added approvals needed to get a perfect axis), but provides little help with choosing among different objectives. In this paper, we take a social choice approach and compare 5 different axis selection rules axiomatically, by studying the properties they satisfy. We establish some impossibility theorems, and characterize (within the class of scoring rules) the rule that chooses the axes that maximize the number of votes that form intervals, using the axioms of ballot monotonicity and resistance to cloning. Finally, we study the behavior of the rules on data from French election surveys, on the votes of justices of the US Supreme Court, and on synthetic data., Comment: 43 pages including appendix, accepted to IJCAI 2024

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is used in elections for many political offices around the world. It allows voters to specify their preferences among candidates as a ranking. We identify a generalization of the rule, called Approval-IRV, that allows voters more freedom by allowing them to give equal preference to several candidates. Such weak orders are a more expressive input format than linear orders, and they help reduce the cognitive effort of voting. Just like standard IRV, Approval-IRV proceeds in rounds by successively eliminating candidates. It interprets each vote as an approval vote for its most-preferred candidates among those that have not been eliminated. At each step, it eliminates the candidate who is approved by the fewest voters. Among the large class of scoring elimination rules, we prove that Approval-IRV is the unique way of extending IRV to weak orders that preserves its characteristic axiomatic properties, in particular independence of clones and respecting a majority's top choices. We also show that Approval-IRV is the unique extension of IRV among rules in this class that satisfies a natural monotonicity property defined for weak orders. Prior work has proposed a different generalization of IRV, which we call Split-IRV, where instead of approving, each vote is interpreted as splitting 1 point equally among its top choices (for example, 0.25 points each if a vote has 4 top choices), and then eliminating the candidate with the lowest score. Split-IRV fails independence of clones, may not respect majority wishes, and fails our monotonicity condition. The multi-winner version of IRV is known as Single Transferable Vote (STV). We prove that Approval-STV continues to satisfy the strong proportional representation properties of STV, underlining that the approval way is the right way of extending the IRV/STV idea to weak orders., Comment: 43 pages including appendix

For the problem of aggregating several rankings into one ranking, Kemeny (1959) proposed two methods: the median rule which selects the ranking with the smallest total swap distance to the input rankings, and the mean rule which minimizes the squared swap distances to the input rankings. The median rule has been extensively studied since and is now known simply as Kemeny's rule. It exhibits majoritarian properties, so for example if more than half of the input rankings are the same, then the output of the rule is the same ranking. We observe that this behavior is undesirable in many rank aggregation settings. For example, when we rank objects by different criteria (quality, price, etc.) and want to aggregate them with specified weights for the criteria, then a criterion with weight 51% should have 51% influence on the output instead of 100%. We show that the Squared Kemeny rule (i.e., the mean rule) behaves this way, by establishing a bound on the distance of the output ranking to any input rankings, as a function of their weights. Furthermore, we give an axiomatic characterization of the Squared Kemeny rule, which mirrors the existing characterization of the Kemeny rule but replaces the majoritarian Condorcet axiom by a proportionality axiom. Finally, we discuss the computation of the rule and show its behavior in a simulation study., Comment: 45 pages including appendix

We study ways of evaluating the performance of losing projects in participatory budgeting (PB) elections by seeking actions that would have led to their victory. We focus on lowering the projects' costs, obtaining additional approvals for them, and asking supporters to refrain from approving other projects: The larger a change is needed, the less successful is the given project. We seek efficient algorithms for computing our measures and we analyze and compare them experimentally. We focus on the greedyAV, Phragm\'en, and Equal-Shares PB rules.

Participatory Budgeting (PB) has evolved into a key democratic instrument for resource allocation in cities. Enabled by digital platforms, cities now have the opportunity to let citizens directly propose and vote on urban projects, using different voting input and aggregation rules. However, the choices cities make in terms of the rules of their PB have often not been informed by academic studies on voter behaviour and preferences. Therefore, this work presents the results of behavioural experiments where participants were asked to vote in a fictional PB setting. We identified approaches to designing PB voting that minimise cognitive load and enhance the perceived fairness and legitimacy of the digital process from the citizens' perspective. In our study, participants preferred voting input formats that are more expressive (like rankings and distributing points) over simpler formats (like approval voting). Participants also indicated a desire for the budget to be fairly distributed across city districts and project categories. Participants found the Method of Equal Shares voting rule to be fairer than the conventional Greedy voting rule. These findings offer actionable insights for digital governance, contributing to the development of fairer and more transparent digital systems and collective decision-making processes for citizens., Comment: Under review in ACM Digital Government: Research and Practice

We study the problem of fair sequential decision making given voter preferences. In each round, a decision rule must choose a decision from a set of alternatives where each voter reports which of these alternatives they approve. Instead of going with the most popular choice in each round, we aim for proportional representation. We formalize this aim using axioms based on Proportional Justified Representation (PJR), which were proposed in the literature on multi-winner voting and were recently adapted to multi-issue decision making. The axioms require that every group of $\alpha\%$ of the voters, if it agrees in every round (i.e., approves a common alternative), then those voters must approve at least $\alpha\%$ of the decisions. A stronger version of the axioms requires that every group of $\alpha\%$ of the voters that agrees in a $\beta$ fraction of rounds must approve $\beta\cdot\alpha\%$ of the decisions. We show that three attractive voting rules satisfy axioms of this style. One of them (Sequential Phragm\'en) makes its decisions online, and the other two satisfy strengthened versions of the axioms but make decisions semi-online (Method of Equal Shares) or fully offline (Proportional Approval Voting). The first two are polynomial-time computable, and the latter is based on an NP-hard optimization, but it admits a polynomial-time local search algorithm that satisfies the same axiomatic properties. We present empirical results about the performance of these rules based on synthetic data and U.S. political elections. We also run experiments where votes are cast by preference models trained on user responses from the moral machine dataset about ethical dilemmas., Comment: 35 pages

We provide a library of participatory budgeting data (Pabulib) and open source tools (Pabutools and Pabustats) for analysing this data. We analyse how the results of participatory budgeting elections would change if a different selection rule was applied. We provide evidence that the outcomes of the Method of Equal Shares would be considerably fairer than those of the Utilitarian Greedy rule that is currently in use. We also show that the division of the projects into districts and/or categories can in many cases be avoided when using proportional rules. We find that this would increase the overall utility of the voters.

To aggregate rankings into a social ranking, one can use scoring systems such as Plurality, Veto, and Borda. We distinguish three types of methods: ranking by score, ranking by repeatedly choosing a winner that we delete and rank at the top, and ranking by repeatedly choosing a loser that we delete and rank at the bottom. The latter method captures the frequently studied voting rules Single Transferable Vote (aka Instant Runoff Voting), Coombs, and Baldwin. In an experimental analysis, we show that the three types of methods produce different rankings in practice. We also provide evidence that sequentially selecting winners is most suitable to detect the "true" ranking of candidates. For different rules in our classes, we then study the (parameterized) computational complexity of deciding in which positions a given candidate can appear in the chosen ranking. As part of our analysis, we also consider the Winner Determination problem for STV, Coombs, and Baldwin and determine their complexity when there are few voters or candidates., Comment: 47 pages including appendix

A voting rule decides on a probability distribution over a set of m alternatives, based on rankings of those alternatives provided by agents. We assume that agents have cardinal utility functions over the alternatives, but voting rules have access to only the rankings induced by these utilities. We evaluate how well voting rules do on measures of social welfare and of proportional fairness, computed based on the hidden utility functions. In particular, we study the distortion of voting rules, which is a worst-case measure. It is an approximation ratio comparing the utilitarian social welfare of the optimum outcome to the social welfare produced by the outcome selected by the voting rule, in the worst case over possible input profiles and utility functions that are consistent with the input. The previous literature has studied distortion with unit-sum utility functions (which are normalized to sum to 1), and left a small asymptotic gap in the best possible distortion. Using tools from the theory of fair multi-winner elections, we propose the first voting rule which achieves the optimal distortion $\Theta(\sqrt{m})$ for unit-sum utilities. Our voting rule also achieves optimum $\Theta(\sqrt{m})$ distortion for a larger class of utilities, including unit-range and approval (0/1) utilities. We then take a worst-case approach to a quantitative measure of the fairness of a voting rule, called proportional fairness. Informally, it measures whether the influence of cohesive groups of agents on the voting outcome is proportional to the group size. We show that there is a voting rule which, without knowledge of the utilities, can achieve a $\Theta(\log m)$-approximation to proportional fairness, and thus also to Nash welfare and to the core, making it interesting for applications in participatory budgeting. For all three approximations, we show that $\Theta(\log m)$ is the best possible., Comment: Accepted version at ACM TEAC, 36 pages including appendix

Social choice becomes easier on restricted preference domains such as single-peaked, single-crossing, and Euclidean preferences. Many impossibility theorems disappear, the structure makes it easier to reason about preferences, and computational problems can be solved more efficiently. In this survey, we give a thorough overview of many classic and modern restricted preference domains and explore their properties and applications. We do this from the viewpoint of computational social choice, letting computational problems drive our interest, but we include a comprehensive discussion of the economics and social choice literatures as well. Particular focus areas of our survey include algorithms for recognizing whether preferences belong to a particular preference domain, and algorithms for winner determination of voting rules that are hard to compute if preferences are unrestricted., Comment: 116 pages, feedback welcome

Apportionment is the problem of distributing $h$ indivisible seats across states in proportion to the states' populations. In the context of the US House of Representatives, this problem has a rich history and is a prime example of interactions between mathematical analysis and political practice. Grimmett (2004) suggested to apportion seats in a randomized way such that each state receives exactly their proportional share $q_i$ of seats in expectation (ex ante proportionality) and receives either $\lfloor q_i \rfloor$ or $\lceil q_i \rceil$ many seats ex post (quota). However, there is a vast space of randomized apportionment methods satisfying these two axioms, and so we additionally consider prominent axioms from the apportionment literature. Our main result is a randomized method satisfying quota, ex ante proportionality and house monotonicity - a property that prevents paradoxes when the number of seats changes and which we require to hold ex post. This result is based on a generalization of dependent rounding on bipartite graphs, which we call cumulative rounding and which might be of independent interest, as we demonstrate via applications beyond apportionment., Comment: 33 pages, version as published by Operations Research

A major open question in fair allocation of indivisible items is whether there always exists an allocation of chores that is Pareto optimal (PO) and envy-free up to one item (EF1). We answer this question affirmatively for the natural class of bivalued utilities, where each agent partitions the chores into easy and difficult ones, and has cost $p > 1$ for chores that are difficult for her and cost $1$ for chores that are easy for her. Such an allocation can be found in polynomial time using an algorithm based on the Fisher market. We also show that for a slightly broader class of utilities, where each agent $i$ can have a potentially different integer $p_i$, an allocation that is maximin share fair (MMS) always exists and can be computed in polynomial time, provided that each $p_i$ is an integer. Our MMS arguments also hold when allocating goods instead of chores, and extend to another natural class of utilities, namely weakly lexicographic utilities., Comment: Full version of paper published at AAMAS 2022. 33 pages

Multiwinner voting rules can be used to select a fixed-size committee from a larger set of candidates. We consider approval-based committee rules, which allow voters to approve or disapprove candidates. In this setting, several voting rules such as Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) and Phragm\'en's rules have been shown to produce committees that are proportional, in the sense that they proportionally represent voters' preferences; all of these rules are strategically manipulable by voters. On the other hand, a generalisation of Approval Voting gives a non-proportional but strategyproof voting rule. We show that there is a fundamental tradeoff between these two properties: we prove that no multiwinner voting rule can simultaneously satisfy a weak form of proportionality (a weakening of justified representation) and a weak form of strategyproofness. Our impossibility is obtained using a formulation of the problem in propositional logic and applying SAT solvers; a human-readable version of the computer-generated proof is obtained by extracting a minimal unsatisfiable set (MUS). We also discuss several related axiomatic questions in the domain of committee elections., Comment: 9 pages, AAMAS-18 paper with an error corrected (see note on first page)

Participatory budgeting is a method used by city governments to select public projects to fund based on residents' votes. Many cities use participatory budgeting at a district level. Typically, a budget is divided among districts proportionally to their population, and each district holds an election over local projects and then uses its budget to fund the projects most preferred by its voters. However, district-level participatory budgeting can yield poor social welfare because it does not necessarily fund projects supported across multiple districts. On the other hand, decision making that only takes global social welfare into account can be unfair to districts: A social-welfare-maximizing solution might not fund any of the projects preferred by a district, despite the fact that its constituents pay taxes to the city. Thus, we study how to fairly maximize social welfare in a participatory budgeting setting with a single city-wide election. We propose a notion of fairness that guarantees each district at least as much welfare as it would have received in a district-level election. We show that, although optimizing social welfare subject to this notion of fairness is NP-hard, we can efficiently construct a lottery over welfare-optimal outcomes that is fair in expectation. Moreover, we show that, when we are allowed to slightly relax fairness, we can efficiently compute a fair solution that is welfare-maximizing, but which may overspend the budget.

We study voting rules for participatory budgeting, where a group of voters collectively decides which projects should be funded using a common budget. We allow the projects to have arbitrary costs, and the voters to have arbitrary additive valuations over the projects. We formulate an axiom (Extended Justified Representation, EJR) that guarantees proportional representation to groups of voters with common interests. We propose a simple and attractive voting rule called the Method of Equal Shares that satisfies this axiom for arbitrary costs and approval utilities, and that satisfies the axiom up to one project for arbitrary additive valuations. This method can be computed in polynomial time. In contrast, we show that the standard method for achieving proportionality in committee elections, Proportional Approval Voting (PAV), cannot be extended to work with arbitrary costs. Finally, we introduce a strengthened axiom (Full Justified Representation, FJR) and show that it is also satisfiable, though by a computationally more expensive and less natural voting rule., Comment: 26 pages, improved presentation, renamed voting rule to the Method of Equal Shares

A preference profile is single-peaked on a tree if the candidate set can be equipped with a tree structure so that the preferences of each voter are decreasing from their top candidate along all paths in the tree. This notion was introduced by Demange (1982), and subsequently Trick (1989) described an efficient algorithm for deciding if a given profile is single-peaked on a tree. We study the complexity of multiwinner elections under several variants of the Chamberlin-Courant rule for preferences single-peaked on trees. We show that the egalitarian version of this problem admits a polynomial-time algorithm. For the utilitarian version, we prove that winner determination remains NP-hard, even for the Borda scoring function; however, a winning committee can be found in polynomial time if either the number of leaves or the number of internal vertices of the underlying tree is bounded by a constant. To benefit from these positive results, we need a procedure that can determine whether a given profile is single-peaked on a tree that has additional desirable properties (such as, e.g., a small number of leaves). To address this challenge, we develop a structural approach that enables us to compactly represent all trees with respect to which a given profile is single-peaked. We show how to use this representation to efficiently find the best tree for a given profile for use with our winner determination algorithms: Given a profile, we can efficiently find a tree with the minimum number of leaves, or a tree with the minimum number of internal vertices among trees on which the profile is single-peaked. We also consider several other optimization criteria for trees: for some we obtain polynomial-time algorithms, while for others we show NP-hardness results., Comment: 44 pages, extends works published at AAAI 2016 and IJCAI 2013, published version

We study a mechanism design problem where a community of agents wishes to fund public projects via voluntary monetary contributions by the community members. This serves as a model for public expenditure without an exogenously available budget, such as participatory budgeting or voluntary tax programs, as well as donor coordination when interpreting charities as public projects and donations as contributions. Our aim is to identify a mutually beneficial distribution of the individual contributions. In the preference aggregation problem that we study, agents report linear utility functions over projects together with the amount of their contributions, and the mechanism determines a socially optimal distribution of the money. We identify a specific mechanism -- the Nash product rule -- which picks the distribution that maximizes the product of the agents' utilities. This rule is Pareto efficient, and we prove that it satisfies attractive incentive properties: it spends each agent's contribution only on projects the agent finds acceptable, and agents are strongly incentivized to participate.

We study two influential voting rules proposed in the 1890s by Phragm\'en and Thiele, which elect a committee or parliament of k candidates which proportionally represents the voters. Voters provide their preferences by approving an arbitrary number of candidates. Previous work has proposed proportionality axioms satisfied by Thiele's rule (now known as Proportional Approval Voting, PAV) but not by Phragm\'en's rule. By proposing two new proportionality axioms (laminar proportionality and priceability) satisfied by Phragm\'en but not Thiele, we show that the two rules achieve two distinct forms of proportional representation. Phragm\'en's rule ensures that all voters have a similar amount of influence on the committee, and Thiele's rule ensures a fair utility distribution. Thiele's rule is a welfarist voting rule (one that maximizes a function of voter utilities). We show that no welfarist rule can satisfy our new axioms, and we prove that no such rule can satisfy the core. Conversely, some welfarist fairness properties cannot be guaranteed by Phragm\'en-type rules. This formalizes the difference between the two types of proportionality. We then introduce an attractive committee rule, the Method of Equal Shares, which satisfies a property intermediate between the core and extended justified representation (EJR). It satisfies laminar proportionality, priceability, and is computable in polynomial time. We show that our new rule provides a logarithmic approximation to the core. On the other hand, PAV provides a factor-2 approximation to the core, and this factor is optimal for rules that are fair in the sense of the Pigou--Dalton principle., Comment: 34 pages, improved clarity of presentation

In the apportionment problem, a fixed number of seats must be distributed among parties in proportion to the number of voters supporting each party. We study a generalization of this setting, in which voters can support multiple parties by casting approval ballots. This approval-based apportionment setting generalizes traditional apportionment and is a natural restriction of approval-based multiwinner elections, where approval ballots range over individual candidates instead of parties. Using techniques from both apportionment and multiwinner elections, we identify rules that generalize the D'Hondt apportionment method and that satisfy strong axioms which are generalizations of properties commonly studied in the apportionment literature. In fact, the rules we discuss provide representation guarantees that are currently out of reach in the general setting of multiwinner elections: First, we show that core-stable committees are guaranteed to exist and can be found in polynomial time. Second, we demonstrate that extended justified representation is compatible with committee monotonicity (also known as house monotonicity)., Comment: 29 pages including appendix. Revised version of AAAI paper

We consider a participatory budgeting problem in which each voter submits a proposal for how to divide a single divisible resource (such as money or time) among several possible alternatives (such as public projects or activities) and these proposals must be aggregated into a single aggregate division. Under $\ell_1$ preferences -- for which a voter's disutility is given by the $\ell_1$ distance between the aggregate division and the division he or she most prefers -- the social welfare-maximizing mechanism, which minimizes the average $\ell_1$ distance between the outcome and each voter's proposal, is incentive compatible (Goel et al. 2016). However, it fails to satisfy the natural fairness notion of proportionality, placing too much weight on majority preferences. Leveraging a connection between market prices and the generalized median rules of Moulin (1980), we introduce the independent markets mechanism, which is both incentive compatible and proportional. We unify the social welfare-maximizing mechanism and the independent markets mechanism by defining a broad class of moving phantom mechanisms that includes both. We show that every moving phantom mechanism is incentive compatible. Finally, we characterize the social welfare-maximizing mechanism as the unique Pareto-optimal mechanism in this class, suggesting an inherent tradeoff between Pareto optimality and proportionality., Comment: 28 pages, final journal version

We study the problem of allocating indivisible items to agents with additive valuations, under the additional constraint that bundles must be connected in an underlying item graph. Previous work has considered the existence and complexity of fair allocations. We study the problem of finding an allocation that is Pareto-optimal. While it is easy to find an efficient allocation when the underlying graph is a path or a star, the problem is NP-hard for many other graph topologies, even for trees of bounded pathwidth or of maximum degree 3. We show that on a path, there are instances where no Pareto-optimal allocation satisfies envy-freeness up to one good, and that it is NP-hard to decide whether such an allocation exists, even for binary valuations. We also show that, for a path, it is NP-hard to find a Pareto-optimal allocation that satisfies maximin share, but show that a moving-knife algorithm can find such an allocation when agents have binary valuations that have a non-nested interval structure., Comment: 21 pages, full version of paper at AAAI-2019

We study the existence of allocations of indivisible goods that are envy-free up to one good (EF1), under the additional constraint that each bundle needs to be connected in an underlying item graph. If the graph is a path and the utility functions are monotonic over bundles, we show the existence of EF1 allocations for at most four agents, and the existence of EF2 allocations for any number of agents; our proofs involve discrete analogues of the Stromquist's moving-knife protocol and the Su--Simmons argument based on Sperner's lemma. For identical utilities, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm that computes an EF1 allocation for any number of agents. For the case of two agents, we characterize the class of graphs that guarantee the existence of EF1 allocations as those whose biconnected components are arranged in a path; this property can be checked in linear time., Comment: Accepted journal version

We propose a new variant of the group activity selection problem (GASP), where the agents are placed on a social network and activities can only be assigned to connected subgroups (gGASP). We show that if multiple groups can simultaneously engage in the same activity, finding a stable outcome is easy as long as the network is acyclic. In contrast, if each activity can be assigned to a single group only, finding stable outcomes becomes computationally intractable, even if the underlying network is very simple: the problem of determining whether a given instance of a gGASP admits a Nash stable outcome turns out to be NP-hard when the social network is a path or a star, or if the size of each connected component is bounded by a constant. We then study the parameterized complexity of finding outcomes of gGASP that are Nash stable, individually stable or core stable. For the parameter `number of activities', we propose an FPT algorithm for Nash stability for the case where the social network is acyclic and obtain a W[1]-hardness result for cliques (i.e., for standard GASP); similar results hold for individual stability. In contrast, finding a core stable outcome is hard even if the number of activities is bounded by a small constant, both for standard GASP and when the social network is a star. For the parameter `number of players', all problems we consider are in XP for arbitrary social networks; on the other hand, we prove W[1]-hardness results with respect to the parameter `number of players' for the case where the social network is a clique., Comment: Preliminary versions of this article appeared in Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Igarashi et al., 2017), and Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (Igarashi et al., 2017). In this longer version, we provide all proofs that were omitted from the conference version and improve some of the results

We prove that every Condorcet-consistent voting rule can be manipulated by a voter who completely reverses their preference ranking, assuming that there are at least 4 alternatives. This corrects an error and improves a result of [Sanver, M. R. and Zwicker, W. S. (2009). One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness. Int J Game Theory 38(4), 553-574.] For the case of precisely 4 alternatives, we exactly characterise the number of voters for which this impossibility result can be proven. We also show analogues of our result for irresolute voting rules. We then leverage our result to state a strong form of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem., Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2017, arXiv:1707.08250. 15 pages

The work we present in this paper initiated the formal study of fractional hedonic games, coalition formation games in which the utility of a player is the average value he ascribes to the members of his coalition. Among other settings, this covers situations in which players only distinguish between friends and non-friends and desire to be in a coalition in which the fraction of friends is maximal. Fractional hedonic games thus not only constitute a natural class of succinctly representable coalition formation games, but also provide an interesting framework for network clustering. We propose a number of conditions under which the core of fractional hedonic games is non-empty and provide algorithms for computing a core stable outcome. By contrast, we show that the core may be empty in other cases, and that it is computationally hard in general to decide non-emptiness of the core., Comment: 25 pages. Journal version following papers at AAMAS-2014 and AAMAS-2015. Includes new NP^NP-hardness result

We consider fair allocation of indivisible items under an additional constraint: there is an undirected graph describing the relationship between the items, and each agent's share must form a connected subgraph of this graph. This framework captures, e.g., fair allocation of land plots, where the graph describes the accessibility relation among the plots. We focus on agents that have additive utilities for the items, and consider several common fair division solution concepts, such as proportionality, envy-freeness and maximin share guarantee. While finding good allocations according to these solution concepts is computationally hard in general, we design efficient algorithms for special cases where the underlying graph has simple structure, and/or the number of agents -or, less restrictively, the number of agent types- is small. In particular, despite non-existence results in the general case, we prove that for acyclic graphs a maximin share allocation always exists and can be found efficiently., Comment: 9 pages, long version of accepted IJCAI-17 paper

Many hardness results in computational social choice make use of the fact that every directed graph may be induced as the pairwise majority relation of some preference profile. However, this fact requires a number of voters that is almost linear in the number of alternatives. It is therefore unclear whether these results remain intact when the number of voters is bounded, as is, for example, typically the case in search engine aggregation settings. In this paper, we provide a systematic study of majority digraphs for a constant number of voters resulting in analytical, experimental, and complexity-theoretic insights. First, we characterize the set of digraphs that can be induced by two and three voters, respectively, and give sufficient conditions for larger numbers of voters. Second, we present a surprisingly efficient implementation via SAT solving for computing the minimal number of voters that is required to induce a given digraph and experimentally evaluate how many voters are required to induce the majority digraphs of real-world and generated preference profiles. Finally, we leverage our sufficient conditions to show that the winner determination problem of various well-known voting rules remains hard even when there is only a small constant number of voters. In particular, we show that Kemeny's rule is hard to evaluate for 7 voters, while previous methods could only establish such a result for constant even numbers of voters., Comment: 45 pages

In this paper we extend the principle of proportional representation to rankings. We consider the setting where alternatives need to be ranked based on approval preferences. In this setting, proportional representation requires that cohesive groups of voters are represented proportionally in each initial segment of the ranking. Proportional rankings are desirable in situations where initial segments of different lengths may be relevant, e.g., hiring decisions (if it is unclear how many positions are to be filled), the presentation of competing proposals on a liquid democracy platform (if it is unclear how many proposals participants are taking into consideration), or recommender systems (if a ranking has to accommodate different user types). We study the proportional representation provided by several ranking methods and prove theoretical guarantees. Furthermore, we experimentally evaluate these methods and present preliminary evidence as to which methods are most suitable for producing proportional rankings.

We propose a new variant of the group activity selection problem (GASP), where the agents are placed on a social network and activities can only be assigned to connected subgroups. We show that if multiple groups can simultaneously engage in the same activity, finding a stable outcome is easy as long as the network is acyclic. In contrast, if each activity can be assigned to a single group only, finding stable outcomes becomes intractable, even if the underlying network is very simple: the problem of determining whether a given instance of a GASP admits a Nash stable outcome turns out to be NP-hard when the social network is a path, a star, or if the size of each connected component is bounded by a constant. On the other hand, we obtain fixed-parameter tractability results for this problem with respect to the number of activities., Comment: 10 pages, full version of accepted AAAI-17 paper

The winner determination problems of many attractive multi-winner voting rules are NP-complete. However, they often admit polynomial-time algorithms when restricting inputs to be single-peaked. Commonly, such algorithms employ dynamic programming along the underlying axis. We introduce a new technique: carefully chosen integer linear programming (IP) formulations for certain voting problems admit an LP relaxation which is totally unimodular if preferences are single-peaked, and which thus admits an integral optimal solution. This technique gives efficient algorithms for finding optimal committees under Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) and the Chamberlin--Courant rule with single-peaked preferences, as well as for certain OWA-based rules. For PAV, this is the first technique able to efficiently find an optimal committee when preferences are single-peaked. An advantage of our approach is that no special-purpose algorithm needs to be used to exploit structure in the input preferences: any standard IP solver will terminate in the first iteration if the input is single-peaked, and will continue to work otherwise., Comment: 10 pages, camera-ready version at AAAI-18, superseded by article "Preferences Single-Peaked on a Circle" with Martin Lackner, JAIR 2020

We propose a model of interdependent scheduling games in which each player controls a set of services that they schedule independently. A player is free to schedule his own services at any time; however, each of these services only begins to accrue reward for the player when all predecessor services, which may or may not be controlled by the same player, have been activated. This model, where players have interdependent services, is motivated by the problems faced in planning and coordinating large-scale infrastructures, e.g., restoring electricity and gas to residents after a natural disaster or providing medical care in a crisis when different agencies are responsible for the delivery of staff, equipment, and medicine. We undertake a game-theoretic analysis of this setting and in particular consider the issues of welfare maximization, computing best responses, Nash dynamics, and existence and computation of Nash equilibria., Comment: Accepted to IJCAI 2016

Euclidean preferences are a widely studied preference model, in which decision makers and alternatives are embedded in d-dimensional Euclidean space. Decision makers prefer those alternatives closer to them. This model, also known as multidimensional unfolding, has applications in economics, psychometrics, marketing, and many other fields. We study the problem of deciding whether a given preference profile is d-Euclidean. For the one-dimensional case, polynomial-time algorithms are known. We show that, in contrast, for every other fixed dimension d > 1, the recognition problem is equivalent to the existential theory of the reals (ETR), and so in particular NP-hard. We further show that some Euclidean preference profiles require exponentially many bits in order to specify any Euclidean embedding, and prove that the domain of d-Euclidean preferences does not admit a finite forbidden minor characterisation for any d > 1. We also study dichotomous preferencesand the behaviour of other metrics, and survey a variety of related work., Comment: 17 pages

Voting rules allow multiple agents to aggregate their preferences in order to reach joint decisions. Perhaps one of the most important desirable properties in this context is Condorcet-consistency, which requires that a voting rule should return an alternative that is preferred to any other alternative by some majority of voters. Another desirable property is participation, which requires that no voter should be worse off by joining an electorate. A seminal result in social choice theory by Moulin (1998) has shown that Condorcet-consistency and participation are incompatible whenever there are at least 4 alternatives and 25 voters. We leverage SAT solving to obtain an elegant human-readable proof of Moulin's result that requires only 12 voters. Moreover, the SAT solver is able to construct a Condorcet-consistent voting rule that satisfies participation as well as a number of other desirable properties for up to 11 voters, proving the optimality of the above bound. We also obtain tight results for set-valued and probabilistic voting rules, which complement and significantly improve existing theorems., Comment: 9 pages, appears at AAMAS 2016

Hedonic games provide a general model of coalition formation, in which a set of agents is partitioned into coalitions, with each agent having preferences over which other players are in her coalition. We prove that with additively separable preferences, it is $\Sigma_2^p$-complete to decide whether a core- or strict-core-stable partition exists, extending a result of Woeginger (2013). Our result holds even if valuations are symmetric and non-zero only for a constant number of other agents. We also establish $\Sigma_2^p$-completeness of deciding non-emptiness of the strict core for hedonic games with dichotomous preferences. Such results establish that the core is much less tractable than solution concepts such as individual stability., Comment: ADT-2017, 15 pages in LNCS style

Hedonic games provide a natural model of coalition formation among self-interested agents. The associated problem of finding stable outcomes in such games has been extensively studied. In this paper, we identify simple conditions on expressivity of hedonic games that are sufficient for the problem of checking whether a given game admits a stable outcome to be computationally hard. Somewhat surprisingly, these conditions are very mild and intuitive. Our results apply to a wide range of stability concepts (core stability, individual stability, Nash stability, etc.) and to many known formalisms for hedonic games (additively separable games, games with W-preferences, fractional hedonic games, etc.), and unify and extend known results for these formalisms. They also have broader applicability: for several classes of hedonic games whose computational complexity has not been explored in prior work, we show that our framework immediately implies a number of hardness results for them., Comment: 7+9 pages, long version of a paper in IJCAI 2015