We study the complexity of (approximate) winner determination under the Monroe and Chamberlin--Courant multiwinner voting rules, which determine the set of representatives by optimizing the total (dis)satisfaction of the voters with their representatives. The total (dis)satisfaction is calculated either as the sum of individual (dis)satisfactions (the utilitarian case) or as the (dis)satisfaction of the worst off voter (the egalitarian case). We provide good approximation algorithms for the satisfaction-based utilitarian versions of the Monroe and Chamberlin--Courant rules, and inapproximability results for the dissatisfaction-based utilitarian versions of them and also for all egalitarian cases. Our algorithms are applicable and particularly appealing when voters submit truncated ballots. We provide experimental evaluation of the algorithms both on real-life preference-aggregation data and on synthetic data. These experiments show that our simple and fast algorithms can in many cases find near-perfect solutions.
In this paper we take the view that the Monroe and Chamberlin--Courant rules are special cases of the following resource allocation problem. The alternatives are shareable resources, each with a certain capacity defined as the maximal number of agents that may share this resource. Each agent has preferences over the resources and is interested in getting exactly one. The goal is to select a predetermined number @math of resources and to find an optimal allocation of these resources (see for details). This provides a unified framework for the two rules and reveals the connection of proportional representation problem to other resource allocation problems. In particular, it closely resembles multi-unit resource allocation with single-unit demand [Chapter 11] ley-sho:b:multiagent-systems (see also the work of @cite_38 for a survey of the most fundamental issues in the multiagent resource allocation theory) and resource allocation with sharable indivisible goods @cite_38 @cite_42 . Below, we point out other connections of the Monroe and Chamberlin--Courant rules to several other problems.
@cite_38 @cite_42
2110060186 2293358884 2949121341 2124837549
We study the complexity of winner determination in single-crossing elections under two classic fully proportional representation rules-Chamberlin-Courant's rule and Monroe's rule. Winner determination for these rules is known to be NP-hard for unrestricted preferences. We show that for single-crossing preferences this problem admits a polynomial-time algorithm for Chamberlin-Courant's rule, but remains NP-hard for Monroe's rule. Our algorithm for Chamberlin-Courant's rule can be modified to work for elections with bounded single-crossing width. We then consider elections that are both single-peaked and single-crossing, and develop an efficient algorithm for the egalitarian variant of Monroe's rule for such elections. While [3] have recently presented a polynomial-time algorithm for this rule under single-peaked preferences, our algorithm has considerably better worst-case running time than that of Given a set of voters V, a set of candidates C, and voters' preferences over the candidates, multiwinner voting rules output a fixed-size subset of candidates committee. Under the Chamberlin---Courant multiwinner voting rule, one fixes a scoring vector of length |C|, and each voter's 'utility' for a given committee is defined to be the score that she assigns to her most preferred candidate in that committee; the goal is then to find a committee that maximizes the joint utility of all voters. The joint utility is typically identified either with the sum of all voters' utilities or with the utility of the least satisfied voter, resulting in, respectively, the utilitarian and the egalitarian variant of the Chamberlin---Courant's rule. For both of these cases, the problem of computing an optimal committee is NP-hard for general preferences, but becomes polynomial-time solvable if voters' preferences are single-peaked or single-crossing. In this paper, we propose a family of multiwinner voting rules that are based on the concept of ordered weighted average OWA and smoothly interpolate between the egalitarian and the utilitarian variants of the Chamberlin---Courant rule. We show that under moderate constraints on the weight vector we can recover many of the algorithmic results known for the egalitarian and the utilitarian version of Chamberlin---Courant's rule in this more general setting. We study the problem of fair allocation for indivisible goods. We use the the maxmin share paradigm introduced by Budish as a measure for fairness. Procacciafirst (EC'14) were first to investigate this fundamental problem in the additive setting. In contrast to what real-world experiments suggest, they show that a maxmin guarantee (1- @math allocation) is not always possible even when the number of agents is limited to 3. While the existence of an approximation solution (e.g. a @math - @math allocation) is quite straightforward, improving the guarantee becomes subtler for larger constants. Procaccia provide a proof for existence of a @math - @math allocation and leave the question open for better guarantees. Our main contribution is an answer to the above question. We improve the result of ! to a @math factor in the additive setting. The main idea for our @math - @math allocation method is clustering the agents. To this end, we introduce three notions and techniques, namely reducibility, matching allocation, and cycle-envy-freeness, and prove the approximation guarantee of our algorithm via non-trivial applications of these techniques. Our analysis involves coloring and double counting arguments that might be of independent interest. One major shortcoming of the current studies on fair allocation is the additivity assumption on the valuations. We alleviate this by extending our results to the case of submodular, fractionally subadditive, and subadditive settings. More precisely, we give constant approximation guarantees for submodular and XOS agents, and a logarithmic approximation for the case of subadditive agents. Furthermore, we complement our results by providing close upper bounds for each class of valuation functions. Finally, we present algorithms to find such allocations for additive, submodular, and XOS settings in polynomial time. 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" versions of classical rules appeared to be still NP-hard. We investigated the parameterized complexity of winner determination of the two classical and two new rules with respect to several parameters. Here we have a mixture of positive and negative results: e.g., we proved fixed-parameter tractability for the parameter the number of candidates but fixed-parameter intractability for the number of winners. For single-peaked electorates our results are overwhelmingly positive: we provide polynomial-time algorithms for most of the considered problems. The only rule that remains NP-hard for single-peaked electorates is the classical Monroe rule.