Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userProportional Justified Representation
53
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Martin Lackner
Publication date
2016
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The goal of multi-winner elections is to choose a fixed-size committee based on voters preferences. An important concern in this setting is representation: large groups of voters with cohesive preferences should be adequately represented by the election winners. Recently, Aziz et al. (2015a;2017) proposed two axioms that aim to capture this idea: justified representation (JR) and its strengthening extended justified representation (EJR). In this paper, we extend the work of Aziz et al. in several directions. First, we answer an open question of Aziz et al., by showing that Reweighted Approval Voting satisfies JR for $k=3, 4, 5$, but fails it for $kge 6$. Second, we observe that EJR is incompatible with the Perfect Representation criterion, which is important for many applications of multi-winner voting, and propose a relaxation of EJR, which we call Proportional Justified Representation (PJR). PJR is more demanding than JR, but, unlike EJR, it is compatible with perfect representation, and a committee that provides PJR can be computed in polynomial time if the committee size divides the number of voters. Moreover, just like EJR, PJR can be used to characterize the classic PAV rule in the class of weighted PAV rules. On the other hand, we show that EJR provides stronger guarantees with respect to average voter satisfaction than PJR does.
rate research
Read More
In the late 19th century, Swedish mathematician Lars Edvard Phragm{e}n proposed a load-balancing approach for selecting committees based on approval ballots. We consider three committee voting rules resulting from this approach: two optimization variants -- one minimizing the maximal load and one minimizing the variance of loads -- and a sequential variant. We study Phragm{e}ns methods from an axiomatic point of view, focusing on properties capturing proportional representation. We show that the sequential variant satisfies proportional justified representation, which is a rare property for committee monotonic methods. Moreover, we show that the optimization variants satisfy perfect representation. We also analyze the computational complexity of Phragm{e}ns methods and provide mixed-integer programming based algorithms for computing them.
In this short note, we describe an approval-based committee selection rule that admits a polynomial-time algorithm and satisfies the Extended Justified Representation (EJR) axiom. This rule is based on approximately maximizing the PAV score, by means of local search. Our proof strategy is to show that this rule provides almost optimal average satisfaction to all cohesive groups of voters, and that high average satisfaction for cohesive groups implies extended justified representation.
We investigate two systems of fully proportional representation suggested by Chamberlin Courant and Monroe. Both systems assign a representative to each voter so that the sum of misrepresentations is minimized. The winner determination problem for both systems is known to be NP-hard, hence this work aims at investigating whether there are variants of the proposed rules and/or specific electorates for which these problems can be solved efficiently. As a variation of these rules, instead of minimizing the sum of misrepresentations, we considered minimizing the maximal misrepresentation introducing effectively two new rules. In the general case these minimax
We study the complexity of determining a winning committee under the Chamberlin--Courant voting rule when voters preferences are single-crossing on a line, or, more generally, on a median graph (this class of graphs includes, e.g., trees and grids). For the line, Skowron et al. (2015) describe an $O(n^2mk)$ algorithm (where $n$, $m$, $k$ are the number of voters, the number of candidates and the committee size, respectively); we show that a simple tweak improves the time complexity to $O(nmk)$. We then improve this bound for $k=Omega(log n)$ by reducing our problem to the $k$-link path problem for DAGs with concave Monge weights, obtaining a $nm2^{Oleft(sqrt{log kloglog n}right)}$ algorithm for the general case and a nearly linear algorithm for the Borda misrepresentation function. For trees, we point out an issue with the algorithm proposed by Clearwater, Puppe and Slinko (2015), and develop a $O(nmk)$ algorithm for this case as well. For grids, we formulate a conjecture about the structure of optimal solutions, and describe a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a winning committee if this conjecture is true; we also explain how to convert this algorithm into a bicriterial approximation algorithm whose correctness does not depend on the conjecture.
In this paper, we consider how to fairly allocate $m$ indivisible chores to a set of $n$ (asymmetric) agents. As exact fairness cannot be guaranteed, motivated by the extensive study of EF1, EFX and PROP1 allocations, we propose and study {em proportionality up to any item} (PROPX), and show that a PROPX allocation always exists. We argue that PROPX might be a more reliable relaxation for proportionality in practice than the commonly studied maximin share fairness (MMS) by the facts that (1) MMS allocations may not exist even with three agents, but PROPX allocations always exist even for the weighted case when agents have unequal obligation shares; (2) any PROPX allocation ensures 2-approximation for MMS, but an MMS allocation can be as bad as $Theta(n)$-approximation to PROPX. We propose two algorithms to compute PROPX allocations and each of them has its own merits. Our first algorithm is based on a recent refinement for the well-known procedure -- envy-cycle elimination, where the returned allocation is simultaneously PROPX and $4/3$-approximate MMS. A by-product result is that an exact EFX allocation for indivisible chores exists if all agents have the same ordinal preference over the chores, which might be of independent interest. The second algorithm is called bid-and-take, which applies to the weighted case. Furthermore, we study the price of fairness for (weighted) PROPX allocations, and show that the algorithm computes allocations with the optimal guarantee on the approximation ratio to the optimal social welfare without fairness constraints.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
