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.
There are several single-winner voting rules for which winner determination is known to be @math -hard. These rules include, for example, Dodgson's rule @cite_2 @cite_9 @cite_21 , Young's rule @cite_32 @cite_21 , and Kemeny's rule @cite_2 @cite_22 @cite_14 . For the single-transferable vote rule (STV), the winner determination problem becomes @math -hard if we use the so-called parallel-universes tie-breaking @cite_13 . Many of these hardness results hold even in the sense of parameterized complexity theory (however, there also is a number of fixed-parameter tractability results; see the references above for details).
@cite_14 @cite_22 @cite_9 @cite_21 @cite_32 @cite_2 @cite_13
2124837549 2110060186 2024298276 2289435862
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. 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 The voting rules proposed by Dodgson and Young are both designed to find an alternative closest to being a Condorcet winner, according to two different notions of proximity; the score of a given alternative is known to be hard to compute under either rule. In this paper, we put forward two algorithms for approximating the Dodgson score: a combinatorial, greedy algorithm and an LP-based algorithm, both of which yield an approximation ratio of H"m"-"1, where m is the number of alternatives and H"m"-"1 is the (m-1)st harmonic number. We also prove that our algorithms are optimal within a factor of 2, unless problems in NP have quasi-polynomial-time algorithms. Despite the intuitive appeal of the greedy algorithm, we argue that the LP-based algorithm has an advantage from a social choice point of view. Further, we demonstrate that computing any reasonable approximation of the ranking produced by Dodgson@?s rule is NP-hard. This result provides a complexity-theoretic explanation of sharp discrepancies that have been observed in the social choice theory literature when comparing Dodgson elections with simpler voting rules. Finally, we show that the problem of calculating the Young score is NP-hard to approximate by any factor. This leads to an inapproximability result for the Young ranking. We characterize the class of committee scoring rules that satisfy the fixed-majority criterion. In some sense, the committee scoring rules in this class are multiwinner analogues of the single-winner Plurality rule, which is uniquely characterized as the only single-winner scoring rule that satisfies the simple majority criterion. We find that, for most of the rules in our new class, the complexity of winner determination is high (i.e., the problem of computing the winners is NP-hard), but we also show some examples of polynomial-time winner determination procedures, exact and approximate.