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.
The hardness of the winner determination problem for the Monroe and Chamberlin--Courant rules have been considered in several papers. Procaccia, Rosenschein and Zohar @cite_18 were the first to show the hardness of these two rules for the case of a particular approval-style dissatisfaction function. Their results were complemented by Lu and Boutilier @cite_25 , Betzler, Slinko and Uhlmann @cite_8 , Yu, Chan, and Elkind @cite_36 , @cite_0 , and Skowron and Faliszewski @cite_33 . These are showing the hardness in case of the Borda dissatisfaction function, obtain results on parameterized hardness of the two rules, and results on hardness (or easiness) for the cases where the profiles are single-peaked or single-crossing. Further, Lu and Boutilier @cite_25 initiated the study of approximability for the Chamberlin--Courant rule (and were the first to use satisfaction-based framework). Specifically, they gave the @math -approximation algorithm for the Chamberlin--Courant rule. The motivation of Lu and Boutilier was coming from the point of view of recommendation systems and, in that sense, our view of the rules is quite similar to theirs.
@cite_18 @cite_33 @cite_8 @cite_36 @cite_0 @cite_25
2110060186 2124837549 2168205737 2293358884
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 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 (approximate) winner determination under the Monroe and Chamberlin-Courant multiwinner voting rules, which determine the set of representatives by optimizing the total satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the voters with their representatives. The total (dis)satisfaction is calculated either as the sum of individual (dis)satisfactions in the utilitarian case or as the (dis)satisfaction of the worst off voter in 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 these rules 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 preference data. These experiments show that our simple and fast algorithms can, in many cases, find near-perfect solutions. 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.