In citizens' assemblies, a group of constituents is randomly selected to weigh in on policy issues. We study a two-stage sampling problem faced by practitioners in countries such as Germany, in which constituents' contact information is stored at a municipal level. As a result, practitioners can only select constituents from a bounded number of cities ex post, while ensuring equal selection probability for constituents ex ante. We develop several algorithms for this problem. Although minimizing the number of contacted cities is NP-hard, we provide a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm and an additive 1-approximation, both based on separation oracles for a linear programming formulation. Recognizing that practical objectives go beyond minimizing city count, we further introduce a simple and more interpretable greedy algorithm, which additionally satisfies an ex-post monotonicity property and achieves an additive 2-approximation. Finally, we explore a notion of ex-post proportionality, for which we propose two practical algorithms: an optimal algorithm based on column generation and integer linear programming and a simple heuristic creating particularly transparent distributions. We evaluate these algorithms on data from Germany, and plan to deploy them in cooperation with a leading nonprofit organization in this space.

Computing a minimum-weight perfect matching for a point set $P$ in Euclidean space is a classic geometric optimization problem. We consider the problem in a dynamic setting, where pairs of points may be added to or removed from the set $P$. Our focus is on maintaining an approximately optimal solution without making too many changes to the solution. More precisely, we are interested in $k$-stable algorithms, which change at most $k$ edges in the matching after each update to the set $P$. In other words, we consider an online setting (with insertions and deletions) with bounded recourse. We study trade-offs between the stability of the algorithm and the approximation ratio of the maintained solution for point sets in $\mathbb{R}^1$. First, we present an $O(\sqrt{n})$-stable algorithm that maintains a $2$-approximation, which we show to be optimal among all algorithms with sublinear stability. Second, we prove that any $o(\log n)$-stable algorithm has unbounded approximation ratio. Our lower bounds hold even in the insertion-only case, while our algorithm works in the fully dynamic case. Moreover, our lower bounds also hold for the bipartite variant of the problem.

We study a budget aggregation setting where voters express their preferred allocation of a fixed budget over a set of alternatives, and a mechanism aggregates these preferences into a single output allocation. Motivated by scenarios in which the budget is not perfectly divisible, we depart from the prevailing literature by restricting the mechanism to output allocations that assign integral amounts. This seemingly minor deviation has significant implications for the existence of truthful mechanisms. Specifically, when voters can propose fractional allocations, we demonstrate that the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem can be extended to our setting. In contrast, when voters are restricted to integral ballots, we identify a class of truthful mechanisms by adapting moving-phantom mechanisms to our context. Finally, we show that while a weak form of proportionality can be achieved alongside truthfulness, stronger proportionality notions derived from approval-based committee voting are incompatible with truthfulness.

We study approval-based committee voting from a novel perspective. While extant work largely centers around proportional representation of the voters, we shift our focus to the candidates while preserving proportionality. Intuitively, candidates supported by similar voter groups should receive comparable representation. Since deterministic voting rules cannot achieve this ideal, we develop randomized voting rules that satisfy ex-ante neutrality, monotonicity, and continuity, while maintaining strong ex-post proportionality guarantees.

The apportionment problem constitutes a fundamental problem in democratic societies: How to distribute a fixed number of seats among a set of states in proportion to the states’ populations? This—seemingly simple—task has led to a rich literature and has become well known in the context of the US House of Representatives. In this paper, we connect the design of monotone apportionment methods to classic problems from discrete geometry and combinatorial optimization and explore the extent to which randomization can enhance proportionality.

We provide the first large-scale data collection of real-world approval-based committee elections. These elections have been conducted on the Polkadot blockchain as part of their Nominated Proof-of-Stake mechanism and contain around one thousand candidates and tens of thousands of (weighted) voters each. We conduct an in-depth study of application-relevant questions, including a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the outcomes returned by different voting rules. Besides considering proportionality measures that are standard in the multiwinner voting literature, we pay particular attention to less-studied measures of overrepresentation, as these are closely related to the security of the Polkadot network. We also analyze how different design decisions such as the committee size affect the examined measures.

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 investigate the fair allocation of indivisible goods to agents with possibly different entitlements represented by weights. Previous work has shown that guarantees for additive valuations with existing envy-based notions cannot be extended to the case where agents have matroid-rank (i.e., binary submodular) valuations. We propose two families of envy-based notions for matroid-rank and general submodular valuations, one based on the idea of transferability and the other on marginal values. We show that our notions can be satisfied via generalizations of rules such as picking sequences and maximum weighted Nash welfare. In addition, we introduce welfare measures based on harmonic numbers, and show that variants of maximum weighted harmonic welfare offer stronger fairness guarantees than maximum weighted Nash welfare under matroid-rank valuations.

Apportionment is the act of distributing the seats of a legislature among political parties (or states) in proportion to their vote shares (or populations). A famous impossibility by Balinski and Young (2001) shows that no apportionment method can be proportional up to one seat (quota) while also responding monotonically to changes in the votes (population monotonicity). Grimmett (2004) proposed to overcome this impossibility by randomizing the apportionment, which can achieve quota as well as perfect proportionality and monotonicity --- at least in terms of the expected number of seats awarded to each party. Still, the correlations between the seats awarded to different parties may exhibit bizarre non-monotonicities. When parties or voters care about joint events, such as whether a coalition of parties reaches a majority, these non-monotonicities can cause paradoxes, including incentives for strategic voting.

Selecting a committee that meets diversity and proportionality criteria is a challenging endeavor that has been studied extensively in recent years. This task becomes even more challenging when some of the selected candidates decline the invitation to join the committee. Since the unavailability of one candidate may impact the rest of the selection, inviting all candidates at the same time may lead to a suboptimal committee. Instead, invitations should be sequential and conditional on which candidates invited so far accepted the invitation: the solution to the committee selection problem is a query policy. If invitation queries are binding, they should be safe: one should not query a candidate without being sure that whatever the set of available candidates possible at that stage, her inclusion will not jeopardize committee optimality. Assuming approval-based inputs, we characterize the set of rules for which a safe query exists at every stage. In order to parallelize the invitation process, we investigate the computation of safe parallel queries, and show that it is often hard. We also study the existence of safe parallel queries with respect to proportionality axioms such as extended justified representation.

Liquid democracy with ranked delegations is a novel voting scheme that unites the practicability of representative democracy with the idealistic appeal of direct democracy: Every voter decides between casting their vote on a question at hand or delegating their voting weight to some other, trusted agent. Delegations are transitive, and since voters may end up in a delegation cycle, they are encouraged to indicate not only a single delegate, but a set of potential delegates and a ranking among them. Based on the delegation preferences of all voters, a delegation rule selects one representative per voter. Previous work has revealed a trade-off between two properties of delegation rules called anonymity and copy-robustness. To overcome this issue we study two fractional delegation rules: Mixed Borda branching, which generalizes a rule satisfying copy-robustness, and the random walk rule, which satisfies anonymity. Using the Markov chain tree theorem, we show that the two rules are in fact equivalent, and simultaneously satisfy generalized versions of the two properties. Combining the same theorem with Fulkerson's algorithm, we develop a polynomial-time algorithm for computing the outcome of the studied delegation rule. This algorithm is of independent interest, having applications in semi-supervised learning and graph theory.

Justified representation (JR) is a standard notion of representation in multiwinner approval voting. Not only does a JR committee always exist, but previous work has also shown through experiments that the JR condition can typically be fulfilled by groups of fewer than k candidates, where k is the target size of the committee. In this paper, we study such groups—known as n/k-justifying groups—both theoretically and empirically. First, we show that under the impartial culture model, n/k-justifying groups of size less than k/2 are likely to exist, which implies that the number of JR committees is usually large. We then present efficient approximation algorithms that compute a small n/k-justifying group for any given instance, and a polynomial-time exact algorithm when the instance admits a tree representation. In addition, we demonstrate that small n/k-justifying groups can often be useful for obtaining a gender-balanced JR committee even though the problem is NP-hard.

Liquid democracy is a novel paradigm for collective decision-making that gives agents the choice between casting a direct vote or delegating their vote to another agent. We consider a generalization of the standard liquid democracy setting by allowing agents to specify multiple potential delegates, together with a preference ranking among them. This generalization increases the number of possible delegation paths and enables higher participation rates because fewer votes are lost due to delegation cycles or abstaining agents. In order to implement this generalization of liquid democracy, we need to find a principled way of choosing between multiple delegation paths. In this paper, we provide a thorough axiomatic analysis of the space of delegation rules, i.e., functions assigning a feasible delegation path to each delegating agent. In particular, we prove axiomatic characterizations as well as an impossibility result for delegation rules. We also analyze requirements on delegation rules that have been suggested by practitioners, and introduce novel rules with attractive properties. By performing an extensive experimental analysis on synthetic as well as real-world data, we compare delegation rules with respect to several quantitative criteria relating to the chosen paths and the resulting distribution of voting power. Our experiments reveal that delegation rules can be aligned on a spectrum reflecting an inherent trade-off between competing objectives.

In multiwinner approval voting, the goal is to select k-member committees based on voters' approval ballots. A well-studied concept of proportionality in this context is the justified representation (JR) axiom, which demands that no large cohesive group of voters remains unrepresented. However, the JR axiom may conflict with other desiderata, such as coverage (maximizing the number of voters who approve at least one committee member) or social welfare (maximizing the number of approvals obtained by committee members). In this work, we investigate the impact of imposing the JR axiom (as well as the more demanding EJR axiom) on social welfare and coverage. Our approach is threefold: we derive worst-case bounds on the loss of welfare/coverage that is caused by imposing JR, study the computational complexity of finding 'good' committees that provide JR (obtaining a hardness result, an approximation algorithm, and an exact algorithm for one-dimensional preferences), and examine this setting empirically on several synthetic datasets.

We consider a matching problem in a bipartite graph G = (A∪B, E) where each node in A is an agent having preferences in partial order over her neighbors, while nodes in B are objects with no preferences. The size of our matching is more important than node preferences–thus, we are interested in maximum matchings only. Any pair of maximum matchings in G (equivalently, perfect matchings or assignments) can be compared by holding a head-to-head election between them where agents are voters. The goal is to compute an assignment such that there is no better or “more popular” assignment. This is the popular assignment problem and it generalizes the well-studied popular matching problem (Abraham et al., 2007). Popular assignments need not exist in every input instance. We show a polynomial-time algorithm that decides if the given instance admits one or not, and computes one, if so. In instances with no popular assignment, we consider the problem of finding an almost popular assignment, i.e., an assignment with minimum unpopularity margin. We show an O∗ (|E|k) time algorithm for deciding if there exists an assignment with unpopularity margin at most k. We then show that this algorithm is essentially optimal by proving that the problem is NP-complete and Wl[1]-hard with parameter k. We also consider the minimum-cost popular assignment problem when there are edge costs, and show this problem to be NP-hard. This hardness holds even when all edge costs are in {0,1} and agents have strict preferences. By contrast, we propose a polynomial-time algorithm to the problem of deciding if there exists a popular assignment with a given set of forced/forbidden edges (this tractability holds even for partially ordered preferences). Our algorithms are combinatorial and based on LP duality. They search for an appropriate witness or dual certificate, and when a certificate cannot be found, we prove that the desired assignment does not exist in G.

Tournament solutions are standard tools for identifying winners based on pairwise comparisons between competing alternatives. The recently studied notion of margin of victory (MoV) offers a general method for refining the winner set of any given tournament solution, thereby increasing the discriminative power of the solution. In this paper, we reveal a number of structural insights on the MoV by investigating fundamental properties such as monotonicity and consistency with respect to the covering relation. Furthermore, we provide experimental evidence on the extent to which the MoV notion refines winner sets in tournaments generated according to various stochastic models.

We study the problem of fairly allocating indivisible items to agents with different entitlements, which captures, for example, the distribution of ministries among political parties in a coalition government. Our focus is on picking sequences derived from common apportionment methods, including five traditional divisor methods and the quota method. We paint a complete picture of these methods in relation to known envy-freeness and proportionality relaxations for indivisible items as well as monotonicity properties with respect to the resource, population, and weights. In addition, we provide characterizations of picking sequences satisfying each of the fairness notions, and show that the well-studied maximum Nash welfare solution fails resource- and population-monotonicity even in the unweighted setting. Our results serve as an argument in favor of using picking sequences in weighted fair division problems.

We introduce the dueling teams problem, a new online-learning setting in which the learner observes noisy comparisons of disjoint pairs of $k$-sized teams from a universe of $n$ players. The goal of the learner is to minimize the number of duels required to identify, with high probability, a Condorcet winning team, i.e., a team which wins against any other disjoint team (with probability at least $1/2$).Noisy comparisons are linked to a total order on the teams. We formalize our model by building upon the dueling bandits setting (Yue et al. 2012) and provide several algorithms, both for stochastic and deterministic settings. For the stochastic setting, we provide a reduction to the classical dueling bandits setting, yielding an algorithm that identifies a Condorcet winning team within $\mathcal{O}((n + k \log (k)) \frac{\max(\log\log n, \log k)}{\Delta^2})$ duels, where $\Delta$ is a gap parameter. For deterministic feedback, we additionally present a gap-independent algorithm that identifies a Condorcet winning team within $\mathcal{O}(nk\log(k)+k^5)$ duels.

In the apportionment problem, a fixed number of seats must be distributed among parties in proportion to the number of voters supporting each party. We study a generalization of this setting, in which voters cast approval ballots over parties, such that each voter can support multiple parties. This approval-based apportionment setting generalizes traditional apportionment and is a natural restriction of approval-based multiwinner elections, where approval ballots range over individual candidates. Using techniques from both apportionment and multiwinner elections, we are able to provide representation guarantees that are currently out of reach in the general setting of multiwinner elections: First, we show that core-stable committees are guaranteed to exist and can be found in polynomial time. Second, we demonstrate that extended justified representation is compatible with committee monotonicity.

Tournament solutions are frequently used to select winners from a set of alternatives based on pairwise comparisons between alternatives. Prior work has shown that several common tournament solutions tend to select large winner sets and therefore have low discriminative power. In this paper, we propose a general framework for refining tournament solutions. In order to distinguish between winning alternatives, and also between non-winning ones, we introduce the notion of margin of victory (MoV) for tournament solutions. MoV is a robustness measure for individual alternatives: For winners, the MoV captures the distance from dropping out of the winner set, and for non-winners, the distance from entering the set. In each case, distance is measured in terms of which pairwise comparisons would have to be reversed in order to achieve the desired outcome. For common tournament solutions, including the top cycle, the uncovered set, and the Banks set, we determine the complexity of computing the MoV and provide worst-case bounds on the MoV for both winners and non-winners. Our results can also be viewed from the perspective of bribery and manipulation.

Abstract LetGbe a digraph where every node has preferences over its incoming edges. The preferences of a node extend naturally to preferences overbranchings, i.e., directed forests; a branchingBispopularifBdoes not lose a head-to-head election (where nodes cast votes) against any branching. Such popular branchings have a natural application in liquid democracy. The popular branching problem is to decide ifGadmits a popular branching or not. We give a characterization of popular branchings in terms ofdual certificatesand use this characterization to design an efficient combinatorial algorithm for the popular branching problem. When preferences are weak rankings, we use our characterization to formulate thepopular branching polytopein the original space and also show that our algorithm can be modified to compute a branching withleast unpopularity margin. When preferences are strict rankings, we show that “approximately popular” branchings always exist.

The min-cost matching problem suffers from being very sensitive to small changes of the input. Even in a simple setting, e.g., when the costs come from the metric on the line, adding two nodes to the input might change the optimal solution completely. On the other hand, one expects that small changes in the input should incur only small changes on the constructed solutions, measured as the number of modified edges. We introduce a two-stage model where we study the trade-off between quality and robustness of solutions. In the first stage we are given a set of nodes in a metric space and we must compute a perfect matching. In the second stage $2k$ new nodes appear and we must adapt the solution to a perfect matching for the new instance. We say that an algorithm is $(α,β)$-robust if the solutions constructed in both stages are $α$-approximate with respect to min-cost perfect matchings, and if the number of edges deleted from the first stage matching is at most $βk$. Hence, $α$ measures the quality of the algorithm and $β$ its robustness. In this setting we aim to balance both measures by deriving algorithms for constant $α$ and $β$. We show that there exists an algorithm that is $(3,1)$-robust for any metric if one knows the number $2k$ of arriving nodes in advance. For the case that $k$ is unknown the situation is significantly more involved. We study this setting under the metric on the line and devise a $(10,2)$-robust algorithm that constructs a solution with a recursive structure that carefully balances cost and redundancy.