In many proportional parliamentary elections, electoral thresholds (typically 3–5%) are used to promote stability and governability by preventing the election of parties with very small representation. However, these thresholds often result in a significant number of "wasted votes" cast for parties that fail to meet the threshold, which reduces representativeness. One proposal is to allow voters to specify replacement votes, by either indicating a second choice party or by ranking a subset of the parties, but there are several ways of deciding on the scores of the parties (and thus the composition of the parliament) given those votes. We introduce a formal model of party voting with thresholds, and compare a variety of party selection rules axiomatically, and experimentally using a dataset we collected during the 2024 European election in France. We identify three particularly attractive rules, called Direct Winners Only (DO), Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Greedy Plurality (GP).

We study the budget aggregation problem in which a set of strategic voters must split a finite divisible resource (such as money or time) among a set of competing projects. Our goal is twofold: We seek truthful mechanisms that provide fairness guarantees to the projects. For the first objective, we focus on the class of moving phantom mechanisms, which are -- to this day -- essentially the only known truthful mechanisms in this setting. For project fairness, we consider the mean division as a fair baseline, and bound the maximum difference between the funding received by any project and this baseline. We propose a novel and simple moving phantom mechanism that provides optimal project fairness guarantees. As a corollary of our results, we show that our new mechanism minimizes the L1 distance to the mean for three projects and gives the first non-trivial bounds on this quantity for more than three projects.

We consider the allocation of homogeneous divisible goods to agents with linear additive valuations. Our focus is on the case where some agents are secretive and reveal no preference information, while the remaining agents reveal full preference information. We study distortion, which is the worst-case approximation ratio when maximizing social welfare given such partial information about agent preferences. As a function of the number of secretive agents k relative to the overall number of agents n, we identify the exact distortion for every p-mean welfare function, which includes the utilitarian welfare (p=1), the Nash welfare (p -> 0), and the egalitarian welfare (p -> -Inf).

We introduce a new model for two-sided matching which allows us to borrow popular fairness notions from the fair division literature such as envy-freeness up to one good and maximin share guarantee. In our model, each agent is matched to multiple agents on the other side over whom she has additive preferences. We demand fairness for each side separately, giving rise to notions such as double envy-freeness up to one match (DEF1) and double maximin share guarantee (DMMS). We show that (a slight strengthening of) DEF1 cannot always be achieved, but in the special case where both sides have identical preferences, the round-robin algorithm with a carefully designed agent ordering achieves it. In contrast, DMMS cannot be achieved even when both sides have identical preferences.

We study online learning settings in which experts act strategically to maximize their influence on the learning algorithm’s predictions by potentially misreporting their beliefs about a sequence of binary events. Our goal is twofold. First, we want the learning algorithm to be no-regret with respect to the best-fixed expert in hindsight. Second, we want incentive compatibility, a guarantee that each expert’s best strategy is to report his true beliefs about the realization of each event. To achieve this goal, we build on the literature on wagering mechanisms, a type of multi-agent scoring rule. We provide algorithms that achieve no regret and incentive compatibility for myopic experts for both the full and partial information settings. In experiments on datasets from FiveThirtyEight, our algorithms have regret comparable to classic no-regret algorithms, which are not incentive-compatible. Finally, we identify an incentive-compatible algorithm for forward-looking strategic agents that exhibits diminishing regret in practice.

We study proportionality in approval-based multiwinner elections with a variable number of winners, where both the size and identity of the winning committee are informed by voters' opinions. While proportionality has been studied in multiwinner elections with a fixed number of winners, it has not been considered in the variable number of winners setting. The measure of proportionality we consider is average satisfaction (AS), which intuitively measures the number of agreements on average between sufficiently large and cohesive groups of voters and the output of the voting rule. First, we show an upper bound on AS that any deterministic rule can provide, and that straightforward adaptations of deterministic rules from the fixed number of winners setting do not achieve better than a 1/2 approximation to AS even for large numbers of candidates. We then prove that a natural randomized rule achieves a 29/32 approximation to AS.

We study the problem of allocating indivisible goods among agents. When randomization is allowed, it is possible to achieve compelling fairness guarantees such as envy-freeness (Foley, 1967), which states that no agent should (in expectation) prefer any other agent's allocation to her own. For instance, we can simply allocate each good, independently of the other goods, to an agent chosen uniformly at random. However, while this scheme is fair ex-ante, it may produce outcomes that are very unfair ex-post, such as by chance assigning all the goods to a single agent. On the other hand, in the absence of randomization, some amount of ex-post unfairness is unavoidable. Nevertheless, it is possible to guarantee relaxations of envy-freeness that bound the maximum level of envy. One popular relaxation is envy-freeness up to one good (Lipton et al., 2004; Budish, 2011), which requires that the envy of any agent toward another agent can be removed by the elimination of at most one good from the envied agent's bundle.

We consider the problem of fairly dividing a collection of indivisible goods among a set of players. Much of the existing literature on fair division focuses on notions of individual fairness. For instance, envy-freeness requires that no player prefer the set of goods allocated to another player to her own allocation. We observe that an algorithm satisfying such individual fairness notions can still treat groups of players unfairly, with one group desiring the goods allocated to another. Our main contribution is a notion of group fairness, which implies most existing notions of individual fairness. Group fairness (like individual fairness) cannot be satisfied exactly with indivisible goods. Thus, we introduce two “up to one good” style relaxations. We show that, somewhat surprisingly, certain local optima of the Nash welfare function satisfy both relaxations and can be computed in pseudo-polynomial time by local search. Our experiments reveal faster computation and stronger fairness guarantees in practice.

In fair division, equitability dictates that each participant receives the same level of utility. In this work, we study equitable allocations of indivisible goods among agents with additive valuations. While prior work has studied (approximate) equitability in isolation, we consider equitability in conjunction with other well-studied notions of fairness and economic efficiency. We show that the Leximin algorithm produces an allocation that satisfies equitability up to any good and Pareto optimality. We also give a novel algorithm that guarantees Pareto optimality and equitability up to one good in pseudopolynomial time. Our experiments on real-world preference data reveal that approximate envy-freeness, approximate equitability, and Pareto optimality can often be achieved simultaneously.

We consider the design of forecasting competitions in which multiple forecasters make predictions about one or more independent events and compete for a single prize. We have two objectives: (1) to award the prize to the most accurate forecaster, and (2) to incentivize forecasters to report truthfully, so that forecasts are informative and forecasters need not spend any cognitive effort strategizing about reports. Proper scoring rules incentivize truthful reporting if all forecasters are paid according to their scores. However, incentives become distorted if only the best-scoring forecaster wins a prize, since forecasters can often increase their probability of having the highest score by reporting extreme beliefs. Even if forecasters do report truthfully, awarding the prize to the forecaster with highest score does not guarantee that high-accuracy forecasters are likely to win; in extreme cases, it can result in a perfect forecaster having zero probability of winning. In this paper, we introduce a truthful forecaster selection mechanism. We lower-bound the probability that our mechanism selects the most accurate forecaster, and give rates for how quickly this bound approaches 1 as the number of events grows. Our techniques can be generalized to the related problems of outputting a ranking over forecasters and hiring a forecaster with high accuracy on future events.

We consider an axiomatic view of the Parimutuel Consensus Mechanism defined by Eisenberg and Gale (1959). The parimutuel consensus mechanism can be interpreted as a parimutuel market for wagering with a proxy that bets optimally on behalf of the agents, depending on the bets of the other agents. We show that the parimutuel consensus mechanism uniquely satisfies the desirable properties of Pareto optimality, individual rationality, budget balance, anonymity, sybilproofness and envy-freeness. While the parimutuel consensus mechanism does violate the key property of incentive compatibility, it is incentive compatible in the limit as the number of agents becomes large. Via simulations on real contest data, we show that violations of incentive compatibility are both rare and only minimally beneficial for the participants. This suggests that the parimutuel consensus mechanism is a reasonable mechanism for eliciting information in practice.

In the late 19th century, Lars Edvard Phragmén 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 Phragmén's methods from an axiomatic point of view, focussing on justified representation and related properties that have recently been introduced by Aziz et al. (2015a) and Sánchez-Fernández et al. (2017). We show that the sequential variant satisfies proportional justified representation, making it the first known polynomial-time computable method with this property. Moreover, we show that the optimization variants satisfy perfect representation. We also analyze the com- putational complexity of Phragmén's methods and provide mixed-integer programming based algorithms for computing them.

A prediction market is a useful means of aggregating information about a future event. To function, the market needs a trusted entity who will verify the true outcome in the end. Motivated by the recent introduction of decentralized prediction markets, we introduce a mechanism that allows for the outcome to be determined by the votes of a group of arbiters who may themselves hold stakes in the market. Despite the potential conflict of interest, we derive conditions under which we can incentivize arbiters to vote truthfully by using funds raised from market fees to implement a peer prediction mechanism. Finally, we investigate what parameter values could be used in a real-world implementation of our mechanism.

We study a dynamic social choice problem in which an alternative is chosen at each round according to the reported valuations of a set of agents. In the interests of obtaining a solution that is both efficient and fair, we aim to maximize the long-term Nash social welfare, which is the product of all agents' utilities. We present and analyze two greedy algorithms for this problem, including the classic Proportional Fair (PF) algorithm. We analyze several versions of the algorithms and how they relate, and provide an axiomatization of PF. Finally, we evaluate the algorithms on data gathered from a computer systems application.

We generalize the classic problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods to the problem of fair public decision making, in which a decision must be made on several social issues simultaneously, and, unlike the classic setting, a decision can provide positive utility to multiple players. We extend the popular fairness notion of proportionality (which is not guaranteeable) to our more general setting, and introduce three novel relaxations --- proportionality up to one issue, round robin share, and pessimistic proportional share --- that are also interesting in the classic goods allocation setting. We show that the Maximum Nash Welfare solution, which is known to satisfy appealing fairness properties in the classic setting, satisfies or approximates all three relaxations in our framework. We also provide polynomial time algorithms and hardness results for finding allocations satisfying these axioms, with or without insisting on Pareto optimality.

We develop the first incentive compatible and near-Pareto-optimal wagering mechanism. Wagering mechanisms can be used to elicit predictions from agents who reveal their beliefs by placing bets. Lambert et al. [20, 21] introduced weighted score wagering mechanisms, a class of budget-balanced wagering mechanisms under which agents with immutable beliefs truthfully report their predictions. However, we demonstrate that these and other existing incentive compatible wagering mechanisms are not Pareto optimal: agents have significant budget left over even when additional trade would be mutually beneficial. Motivated by this observation, we design a new wagering mechanism, the double clinching auction, a two-sided version of the adaptive clinching auction [9]. We show that no wagering mechanism can simultaneously satisfy weak budget balance, individual rationality, weak incentive compatibility, and Pareto optimality. However, we prove that the double clinching auction attains the first three and show in a series of simulations using real contest data that it comes much closer to Pareto optimality than previously known incentive compatible wagering mechanisms, in some cases almost matching the efficiency of the Pareto optimal (but not incentive compatible) parimutuel consensus mechanism. When the goal of wagering is to crowdsource probabilities, Pareto optimality drives participation and incentive compatibility drives accuracy, making the double clinching auction an attractive and practical choice. Our mechanism may be of independent interest as the first two-sided version of the adaptive clinching auction.

In many multiagent environments, a designer has some, but limited control over the game being played. In this paper, we formalize this by considering incompletely specified games, in which some entries of the payoff matrices can be chosen from a specified set. We show that it is NP-hard for the designer to make this choices optimally, even in zero-sum games. In fact, it is already intractable to decide whether a given action is (potentially or necessarily) played in equilibrium. We also consider incompletely specified symmetric games in which all completions are required to be symmetric. Here, hardness holds even in weak tournament games (symmetric zero-sum games whose entries are all -1, 0, or 1) and in tournament games (symmetric zero-sum games whose non-diagonal entries are all -1 or 1). The latter result settles the complexity of the possible and necessary winner problems for a social-choice-theoretic solution concept known as the bipartisan set. We finally give a mixed-integer linear programming formulation for weak tournament games and evaluate it experimentally.

We study the societal tradeoffs problem, where a set of voters each submit their ideal tradeoff value between each pair of activities (e.g., "using a gallon of gasoline is as bad as creating 2 bags of landfill trash"), and these are then aggregated into the societal tradeoff vector using a rule. We introduce the family of distance-based rules and show that these can be justified as maximum likelihood estimators of the truth. Within this family, we single out the logarithmic distance-based rule as especially appealing based on a social-choice-theoretic axiomatization. We give an efficient algorithm for executing this rule as well as an approximate hill climbing algorithm, and evaluate these experimentally.

We consider approval-based committee voting, i.e., the setting where each voter approves a subset of candidates, and these votes are then used to select a fixed-size set of winners (committee). We propose a natural axiom for this setting, which we call justified representation (JR). This axiom requires that if a large enough group of voters exhibits agree- ment by supporting the same candidate, then at least one voter in this group has an approved candidate in the winning committee. We show that for every list of ballots it is possible to select a committee that provides JR. We then check if this axiom is fulfilled by well-known approval-based voting rules. We show that the answer is negative for most of the rules we consider, with notable exceptions of PAV (Proportional Approval Voting), an extreme version of RAV (Reweighted Approval Voting), and, for a restricted preference domain, MAV (Minimax Approval Voting). We then introduce a stronger version of the JR axiom, which we call extended justified representation (EJR), and show that PAV satisfies EJR, while other rules do not. We also consider several other questions related to JR and EJR, including the relationship between JR/EJR and unanimity, and the complexity of the associated algorithmic problems.

Runoff voting rules such as single transferable vote (STV) and Baldwin's rule are of particular interest in computational social choice due to their recursive nature and hardness of manipulation, as well as in (human) practice because they are relatively easy to understand. However, they are not known for their compliance with desirable axiomatic properties, which we attempt to rectify here. We characterize runoff rules that are based on scoring rules using two axioms: a weakening of local independence of irrelevant alternatives and a variant of population-consistency. We then show, as our main technical result, that STV is the only runoff scoring rule satisfying an independence-of-clones property. Furthermore, we provide axiomatizations of Baldwin's rule and Coombs' rule.