PQ-trees [Booth, 1975; Kellogg S. Booth and George S. Lueker, 1976] (and their more general variant PC-trees [Hsu and McConnell, 2003; Wei-Kuan and Wen-Lian, 1999]) are a well-known data structure for representing the set of linear (or for PC-trees, circular) orders respecting a given set of consecutivity constraints. Each such constraint is specified by a set of elements and requires that these elements appear consecutively in the linear (or circular) order; thus, they disallow the set to be interleaved with its complement. The main operation supported by these data structures is thus the so-called update, which takes as input a set that forms an additional constraint, and in response changes the tree in order to restrict the represented orders to those satisfying the new constraint. Interpreting a given tree is straightforward: leaves represent the underlying elements, while inner nodes either allow the order of their subtrees to be reversed (Q/C-nodes) or to be arbitrarily permuted (P-nodes). However, the way this structure and the set of represented orders change under updates is less intuitive. We present an interactive web app that allows users to specify sets of consecutivity constraints in the form of a 0/1-matrix and then calculates and visualizes the corresponding PQ- or PC-tree. The constraints can then be changed dynamically while observing how this changes the structure of the tree and the set of represented orders. Through this interactive exploration, we hope to make PQ- and PC-trees more accessible to a wider audience.

In an approval-based committee election, the goal is to select a committee consisting of k out of m candidates, based on n voters who each approve an arbitrary number of the candidates. The core of such an election consists of all committees that satisfy a certain stability property which implies proportional representation. In particular, committees in the core cannot be "objected to" by a coalition of voters who is underrepresented. The notion of the core was proposed in 2016, but it has remained an open problem whether it is always non-empty. We prove that core committees always exist when k ≤ 8, for any number of candidates m and any number of voters n, by showing that the Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) rule, proposed by Thiele in 1895, always satisfies the core when k ≤ 7 and always selects at least one committee in the core when k = 8. We also develop an artificial rule based on recursive application of PAV, and use it to show that the core is non-empty whenever there are m ≤ 15 candidates, for any committee size k ≤ m and any number of voters n. These results are obtained with the help of computer search using linear programs.

We study committee voting rules under ranked preferences, which map the voters' preference relations to a subset of the alternatives of predefined size. In this setting, the compatibility between proportional representation and committee monotonicity is a fundamental open problem that has been mentioned in several works. We address this research question by designing a new committee voting rule called the Solid Coalition Refinement (SCR) rule that simultaneously satisfies committee monotonicity and Dummett's PSC as well as one of its variants called inclusion PSC. This is the first rule known to satisfy both of these properties. Moreover, we show that this is effectively the best that we can hope for as other fairness notions adapted from approval voting are incompatible with committee monotonicity. For truncated preferences, we prove that the SCR rule still satisfies PSC and a property called independence of losing voter blocs, thereby refuting a conjecture of Graham-Squire et al. (2024). Finally, we discuss the consequences of our results in the context of rank aggregation.

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).

Lindahl equilibrium is a solution concept for allocating a fixed budget across several divisible public goods. It always lies in the core, meaning that the equilibrium allocation satisfies desirable stability and proportional fairness properties. We consider a model where agents have separable linear utility functions over the public goods, and the output assigns to each good an amount of spending, summing to at most the available budget.

We study the problem of fair sequential decision making given voter preferences. In each round, a decision rule must choose a decision from a set of alternatives where each voter reports which of these alternatives they approve. Instead of going with the most popular choice in each round, we aim for proportional representation, using axioms inspired by the multi-winner voting literature. The axioms require that every group of α% of the voters, if it agrees in every round (i.e., approves a common alternative), then those voters must approve at least α% of the decisions. A stronger version of the axioms requires that every group of α% of the voters that agrees in a β fraction of rounds must approve β⋅α% of the decisions. We show that three attractive voting rules satisfy axioms of this style. One of them (Sequential Phragmén) makes its decisions online, and the other two satisfy strengthened versions of the axioms but make decisions semi-online (Method of Equal Shares) or fully offline (Proportional Approval Voting). We present empirical results for these rules based on synthetic data and U.S. political elections. We also run experiments using the moral machine dataset about ethical dilemmas. We train preference models on user responses from different countries and let the models cast votes. We find that aggregating these votes using our rules leads to a more equal utility distribution across demographics than making decisions using a single global preference model.

In recent years, the computational social choice community has increasingly studied the topic of proportional representation. This topic is particularly relevant for political elections, with many countries basing their voting systems on this principle, especially in Europe. However, the ideas behind proportional representation are also relevant in many other domains, including applications in artificial intelligence. We discuss a model of sequential decision making with proportional rules, and how it can be used for three applications: for merging the outputs of several large language models, for improving reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), and for virtual democracy.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is used in elections for many political offices around the world. It allows voters to specify their preferences among candidates as a ranking. We identify a generalization of the rule, called Approval-IRV, that allows voters more freedom by allowing them to give equal preference to several candidates. Such weak orders are a more expressive input format than linear orders, and they help reduce the cognitive effort of voting.

For the problem of aggregating several rankings into one ranking, Kemeny [1959] proposed two methods: the median rule which selects the ranking with the smallest total swap distance to the input rankings, and the mean rule which minimizes the squared swap distances to the input rankings. The median rule has been extensively studied since and is now known simply as Kemeny's rule. It exhibits majoritarian properties, so for example if more than half of the input rankings are the same, then the output of the rule is the same ranking.

To aggregate rankings into a social ranking, one can use scoring systems such as Plurality, Veto, and Borda. We distinguish three types of methods: ranking by score, ranking by repeatedly choosing a winner that we delete and rank at the top, and ranking by repeatedly choosing a loser that we delete and rank at the bottom. The latter method captures the frequently studied voting rules Single Transferable Vote (aka Instant Runoff Voting), Coombs, and Baldwin. In an experimental analysis, we show that the three types of methods produce different rankings in practice. We also provide evidence that sequentially selecting winners is most suitable to detect the "true" ranking of candidates. For different rules in our classes, we then study the (parameterized) computational complexity of deciding in which positions a given candidate can appear in the chosen ranking. As part of our analysis, we also consider the Winner Determination problem for STV, Coombs, and Baldwin and determine their complexity when there are few voters or candidates.

We provide a library of participatory budgeting data (Pabulib) and open source tools (Pabutools and Pabustats) for analysing this data. We analyse how the results of participatory budgeting elections would change if a different selection rule was applied. We provide evidence that the outcomes of the Method of Equal Shares would be considerably fairer than those of the Utilitarian Greedy rule that is currently in use. We also show that the division of the projects into districts and/or categories can in many cases be avoided when using proportional rules. We find that this would increase the overall utility of the voters.

A divisible public resource is to be divided among projects. We study rules that decide on a distribution of the budget when voters have ordinal preference rankings over projects. Examples of such portioning problems are participatory budgeting, time shares, and parliament elections. We introduce a family of rules for portioning, inspired by positional scoring rules. Rules in this family are given by a scoring vector (such as plurality or Borda) associating a positive value with each rank in a vote, and an aggregation function such as leximin or the Nash product. Our family contains well-studied rules, but most are new. We discuss computational and normative properties of our rules. We focus on fairness, and introduce the SD-core, a group fairness notion. Our Nash rules are in the SD-core, and the leximin rules satisfy individual fairness properties. Both are Pareto-efficient.

In fair rent division, the problem is to assign rooms to roommates and fairly split the rent based on roommates' reported valuations for the rooms. Envy-free rent division is the most popular application on the fair division website Spliddit. The standard model assumes that agents can correctly report their valuations for each room. In practice, agents may be unsure about their valuations, for example because they have had only limited time to inspect the rooms. Our goal is to find a robust rent division that remains fair even if agent valuations are slightly different from the reported ones. We introduce the lexislack solution, which selects a rent division that remains envy-free for valuations within as large a radius as possible of the reported valuations. We also consider robustness notions for valuations that come from a probability distribution, and use results from learning theory to show how we can find rent divisions that (almost) maximize the probability of being envy-free, or that minimize the expected envy. We show that an almost optimal allocation can be identified based on polynomially many samples from the valuation distribution. Finding the best allocation given these samples is NP-hard, but in practice such an allocation can be found using integer linear programming.

A voting rule decides on a probability distribution over a set of m alternatives, based on rankings of those alternatives provided by agents. We assume that agents have cardinal utility functions over the alternatives, but voting rules have access to only the rankings induced by these utilities. We evaluate how well voting rules do on measures of social welfare and of proportional fairness, computed based on the hidden utility functions.

Apportionment is the problem of distributing h indivisible seats across states in proportion to the states' populations. In the context of the US House of Representatives, this problem has a rich history and is a prime example of interactions between mathematical analysis and political practice. Grimmett [2004] suggested to apportion seats in a randomized way such that each state receives exactly their proportional share qi of seats in expectation (ex ante proportionality) and receives either ↾qi↿ or ⇂qi⇃ many seats ex post (quota). However, there is a vast space of randomized apportionment methods satisfying these two axioms, and so we additionally consider prominent axioms from the apportionment literature. Our main result is a randomized method satisfying quota, ex ante proportionality and house monotonicity — a property that prevents paradoxes when the number of seats changes and which we require to hold ex post. This result is based on a generalization of dependent rounding on bipartite graphs, which we call cumulative rounding and which might be of independent interest, as we demonstrate via applications beyond apportionment.

A preference profile is single-peaked on a tree if the candidate set can be equipped with a tree structure so that the preferences of each voter are decreasing from their top candidate along all paths in the tree. This notion was introduced by Demange (1982), and subsequently Trick (1989b) described an efficient algorithm for deciding if a given profile is single-peaked on a tree. We study the complexity of multiwinner elections under several variants of the Chamberlin–Courant rule for preferences single-peaked on trees. We show that in this setting the egalitarian version of this rule admits a polynomial-time winner determination algorithm. For the utilitarian version, we prove that winner determination remains NP-hard for the Borda scoring function; indeed, this hardness results extends to a large family of scoring functions. However, a winning committee can be found in polynomial time if either the number of leaves or the number of internal vertices of the underlying tree is bounded by a constant. To benefit from these positive results, we need a procedure that can determine whether a given profile is single-peaked on a tree that has additional desirable properties (such as, e.g., a small number of leaves). To address this challenge, we develop a structural approach that enables us to compactly represent all trees with respect to which a given profile is single-peaked. We show how to use this representation to efficiently find the best tree for a given profile for use with our winner determination algorithms: Given a profile, we can efficiently find a tree with the minimum number of leaves, or a tree with the minimum number of internal vertices among trees on which the profile is single-peaked. We then explore the power and limitations of this framework: we develop polynomial-time algorithms to find trees with the smallest maximum degree, diameter, or pathwidth, but show that it is NP-hard to check whether a given profile is single-peaked on a tree that is isomorphic to a given tree, or on a regular tree.

Participatory budgeting is a method used by city governments to select public projects to fund based on residents' votes. Many cities use participatory budgeting at a district level. Typically, a budget is divided among districts proportionally to their population, and each district holds an election over local projects and then uses its budget to fund the projects most preferred by its voters. However, district-level participatory budgeting can yield poor social welfare because it does not necessarily fund projects supported across multiple districts. On the other hand, decision making that only takes global social welfare into account can be unfair to districts: A social-welfare-maximizing solution might not fund any of the projects preferred by a district, despite the fact that its constituents pay taxes to the city. Thus, we study how to fairly maximize social welfare in a participatory budgeting setting with a single city-wide election. We propose a notion of fairness that guarantees each district at least as much welfare as it would have received in a district-level election. We show that, although optimizing social welfare subject to this notion of fairness is NP-hard, we can efficiently construct a lottery over welfare-optimal outcomes that is fair in expectation. Moreover, we show that, when we are allowed to slightly relax fairness, we can efficiently compute a fair solution that is welfare-maximizing, but which may overspend the budget.

We consider approval-based committee elections, in which a size-k subset of available candidates must be selected given approval sets for each voter, indicating the candidates approved by the voter. A number of axioms capturing ideas of fairness and proportionality have been proposed for this framework. We argue that even the strongest of them, such as priceability and the core, only rule out certain undesirable committees, but fail to ensure that the selected committee is fair in all cases. We propose two new solution concepts, stable priceability and balanced stable priceability, and show that they select arguably fair committees. Our solution concepts come with a non-trivial-to-construct but easy-to-understand market-based explanation for why the chosen committee is fair. We show that stable priceability is closely related to the notion of Lindahl equilibrium from economics.

We study voting rules for participatory budgeting, where a group of voters collectively decides which projects should be funded using a common budget. We allow the projects to have arbitrary costs, and the voters to have arbitrary additive valuations over the projects. We formulate two axioms that guarantee proportional representation to groups of voters with common interests. To the best of our knowledge, all known rules for participatory budgeting do not satisfy either of the two axioms; in addition we show that the most prominent proportional rule for committee elections, Proportional Approval Voting, cannot be adapted to arbitrary costs nor to additive valuations so that it would satisfy our axioms of proportionality. We construct a simple and attractive voting rule that satisfies one of our axioms (for arbitrary costs and arbitrary additive valuations), and that can be evaluated in polynomial time. We prove that our other stronger axiom is also satisfiable, though by a computationally more expensive and less natural voting rule.

We consider a setting in which agents contribute amounts of a divisible resource (such as money or time) to a common pool, which is used to finance projects of public interest. How the collected resources are to be distributed among the projects is decided by a distribution rule that takes as input a set of approved projects for each agent. An important application of this setting is donor coordination, which allows philanthropists to find an efficient and mutually agreeable distribution of their donations. We analyze various distribution rules (including the Nash product rule and the conditional utilitarian rule) in terms of classic as well as new axioms, and propose the first fair distribution rule that satisfies efficiency and monotonicity. Our main result settles a long-standing open question of Bogomolnaia, Moulin, and Stong (2005) by showing that no strategyproof and efficient rule can guarantee that at least one approved project of each agent receives a positive amount of the resource. The proof reasons about 386 preference profiles and was obtained using a computer-aided method involving SAT solvers.

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.

A group of agents needs to divide a divisible common resource (such as a monetary budget) among several uses or projects. We assume that agents have approval preferences over projects, and their utility is the fraction of the budget spent on approved projects. If we maximize utilitarian social welfare, the entire budget will be spent on a single popular project, even if a substantial fraction of the agents disapprove it. This violates the individual fair share axiom (IFS) which requires that for each agent, at least 1/n of the budget is spent on approved projects. We study the price of imposing such fairness axioms on utilitarian social welfare. We show that no division rule satisfying IFS can guarantee to achieve more than an O(1/√m) fraction of maximum utilitarian welfare, in the worst case. However, imposing stronger group fairness conditions (such as the core) does not come with an increased price, since both the conditional utilitarian rule and the Nash rule match this bound and guarantee an Ώ(1/√m) fraction. The same guarantee is attained by the rule under which the spending on a project is proportional to its approval score. We also study a family of rules interpolating between the utilitarian and the Nash rule, quantifying a trade-off between welfare and group fairness. An experimental analysis by sampling using several probabilistic models shows that the conditional utilitarian rule achieves very high welfare on average.

To be well-behaved, systems that process preference data must satisfy certain conditions identified by economic decision theory and by social choice theory. In ML, preferences and rankings are commonly learned by fitting a probabilistic model to noisy preference data. The behavior of this learning process from the view of economic theory has previously been studied for the case where the data consists of rankings. In practice, it is more common to have only pairwise comparison data, and the formal properties of the associated learning problem are more challenging to analyze. We show that a large class of random utility models (including the Thurstone–Mosteller Model), when estimated using the MLE, satisfy a Pareto efficiency condition. These models also satisfy a strong monotonicity property, which implies that the learning process is responsive to input data. On the other hand, we show that these models fail certain other consistency conditions from social choice theory, and in particular do not always follow the majority opinion. Our results inform existing and future applications of random utility models for societal decision making.

The design of voting rules is traditionally guided by desirable axioms. Recent work shows that, surprisingly, the axiomatic approach can also support the generation of explanations for voting outcomes. However, no bounds on the size of these explanations is given; for all we know, they may be unbearably tedious. We prove, however, that outcomes of the important Borda rule can be explained using $O(m^2)$ steps, where $m$ is the number of alternatives. Our main technical result is a general lower bound that, in particular, implies that the foregoing bound is asymptotically tight. We discuss the significance of our results for AI and machine learning, including their potential to bolster an emerging paradigm of automated decision making called virtual democracy.

We study two influential voting rules proposed in the 1890s by Phragmen and Thiele, which elect a committee of k candidates which proportionally represents the voters. Voters provide their preferences by approving an arbitrary number of candidates. Previous work has proposed proportionality axioms satisfied by Thiele's rule (now known as Proportional Approval Voting, PAV) but not by Phragmen's rule. By proposing two new proportionality axioms (laminar proportionality and priceability) satisfied by Phragmen but not Thiele, we show that the two rules achieve two distinct forms of proportional representation. Phragmen's rule ensures that all voters have a similar amount of influence on the committee, and Thiele's rule ensures a fair utility distribution. Thiele's rule is a welfarist voting rule (one that maximizes a function of voter utilities). We show that no welfarist rule can satisfy our new axioms, and we prove that no such rule can satisfy the core. Conversely, some welfarist fairness properties cannot be guaranteed by Phragmen-type rules. This formalizes the difference between the two types of proportionality. We then introduce an attractive committee rule which satisfies a property intermediate between the core and extended justified representation (EJR). It satisfies laminar proportionality, priceability, and is computable in polynomial time. We show that our new rule provides a logarithmic approximation to the core. On the other hand, PAV provides a factor-2 approximation to the core, and this factor is optimal for rules that are fair in the sense of the Pigou--Dalton principle. The full version of the paper is available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.11747.pdf.

We introduce the domain of preferences that are single-peaked on a circle, which is a generalization of the well-studied single-peaked domain. This preference restriction is useful, e.g., for scheduling decisions, certain facility location problems, and for one-dimensional decisions in the presence of extremist preferences. We give a fast recognition algorithm of this domain, provide a characterisation by finitely many forbidden subprofiles, and show that many popular single- and multi-winner voting rules are polynomial-time computable on this domain. In particular, we prove that Proportional Approval Voting can be computed in polynomial time for profiles that are single-peaked on a circle. In contrast, Kemeny's rule remains hard to evaluate, and several impossibility results from social choice theory can be proved using only profiles in this domain.

We study the problem of allocating indivisible items to agents with additive valuations, under the additional constraint that bundles must be connected in an underlying item graph. Previous work has considered the existence and complexity of fair allocations. We study the problem of finding an allocation that is Pareto-optimal. While it is easy to find an efficient allocation when the underlying graph is a path or a star, the problem is NP-hard for many other graph topologies, even for trees of bounded pathwidth or of maximum degree 3. We show that on a path, there are instances where no Pareto-optimal allocation satisfies envy-freeness up to one good, and that it is NP-hard to decide whether such an allocation exists, even for binary valuations. We also show that, for a path, it is NP-hard to find a Pareto-optimal allocation that satisfies maximin share, but show that a moving-knife algorithm can find such an allocation when agents have binary valuations that have a non-nested interval structure.

A public divisible resource is to be divided among projects. We study rules that decide on a distribution of the budget when voters have ordinal preference rankings over projects. Examples of such portioning problems are participatory budgeting, time shares, and parliament elections. We introduce a family of rules for portioning, inspired by positional scoring rules. Rules in this family are given by a scoring vector (such as plurality or Borda) associating a positive value with each rank in a vote, and an aggregation function such as leximin or the Nash product. Our family contains well-studied rules, but most are new. We discuss computational and normative properties of our rules. We focus on fairness, and introduce the SD-core, a group fairness notion. Our Nash rules are in the SD-core, and the leximin rules satisfy individual fairness properties. Both are Pareto-efficient.

We use social choice theory to develop correlation coefficients between ranked preferences and an ordinal attribute such as educational attainment or income level. For example, such correlations could be used to formalise statements such as "voters' preferences over parties are better explained by age than by income level". In the literature, preferences that are perfectly explained by a single-dimensional agent attribute are commonly taken to be single-crossing preferences. Thus, to quantify how well an attribute explains preferences, we can order the voters by the value of the attribute and compute how far the resulting ordered profile is from being single-crossing, for various commonly studied distance measures (Kendall tau distance, voter/alternative deletion, etc.). The goal of this paper is to evaluate the computational feasibility of this approach. To this end, we investigate the complexity of computing these distances, obtaining an essentially complete picture for the distances we consider.

We study the existence of allocations of indivisible goods that are envy-free up to one good (EF1), under the additional constraint that each bundle needs to be connected in an underlying item graph G. When the items are arranged in a path, we show that EF1 allocations are guaranteed to exist for arbitrary monotonic utility functions over bundles, provided that either there are at most four agents, or there are any number of agents but they all have identical utility functions. Our existence proofs are based on classical arguments from the divisible cake-cutting setting, and involve discrete analogues of cut-and-choose, of Stromquist's moving-knife protocol, and of the Su-Simmons argument based on Sperner's lemma. Sperner's lemma can also be used to show that on a path, an EF2 allocation exists for any number of agents. Except for the results using Sperner's lemma, all of our procedures can be implemented by efficient algorithms. Our positive results for paths imply the existence of connected EF1 or EF2 allocations whenever G is traceable, i.e., contains a Hamiltonian path. For the case of two agents, we completely characterize the class of graphs G that guarantee the existence of EF1 allocations as the class of graphs whose biconnected components are arranged in a path. This class is strictly larger than the class of traceable graphs; one can check in linear time whether a graph belongs to this class, and if so return an EF1 allocation.

Committee scoring rules form an important class of multiwinner voting rules. As computing winning committees under such rules is generally intractable, in this paper we investigate efficient heuristics for this task. We design two novel heuristics for computing approximate results of multiwinner elections under arbitrary committee scoring rules; notably, one of these heuristics uses concepts from cooperative game theory. We then provide an experimental evaluation of our heuristics (and two others, known from the literature): we compare the scores of the committees output by our algorithms to the scores of the optimal committees, and also use the two-dimensional Euclidean domain to compare the visual representations of the outputs of our algorithms.

If voters' preferences are one-dimensional, many hard problems in computational social choice become tractable. A preference profile can be classified as one-dimensional if it has the single-crossing property, which requires that the voters can be ordered from left to right so that their preferences are consistent with this order. In practice, preferences may exhibit some one-dimensional structure, despite not being single-crossing in the formal sense. Hence, we ask whether one can identify preference profiles that are close to being single-crossing. We consider three distance measures, which are based on partitioning voters or candidates or performing a small number of swaps in each vote. We prove that it can be efficiently decided if voters can be split into two single-crossing groups. Also, for every fixed k >= 1 we can decide in polynomial time if a profile can be made single-crossing by performing at most k candidate swaps per vote. In contrast, for each k >= 3 it is NP-complete to decide whether candidates can be partitioned into k sets so that the restriction of the input profile to each set is single-crossing.

The winner determination problems of many attractive multi-winner voting rules are NP-complete. However, they often admit polynomial-time algorithms when restricting inputs to be single-peaked. Commonly, such algorithms employ dynamic programming along the underlying axis. We introduce a new technique: carefully chosen integer linear programming (IP) formulations for certain voting problems admit an LP relaxation which is totally unimodular if preferences are single-peaked, and which thus admits an integral optimal solution. This technique gives efficient algorithms for finding optimal committees under Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) and the Chamberlin-Courant rule with single-peaked preferences, as well as for certain OWA-based rules. For PAV, this is the first technique able to efficiently find an optimal committee when preferences are single-peaked. An advantage of our approach is that no special-purpose algorithm needs to be used to exploit structure in the input preferences: any standard IP solver will terminate in the first iteration if the input is single-peaked, and will continue to work otherwise.

We propose a new variant of the group activity selection problem (GASP), where the agents are placed on a social network and activities can only be assigned to connected subgroups. We show that if multiple groupscan simultaneously engage in the same activity, finding a stable outcome is easy as long as the networkis acyclic. In contrast, if each activity can be assigned to a single group only, finding stable outcomes becomes computationally intractable, even if the underlying network is very simple: the problem of determining whether a given instance of a GASP admits a Nash stable outcome turns out to be NP-hard when the social network is a path, a star, or if the size of each connected component is bounded by a constant.On the other hand, we obtain fixed-parameter tractability results for this problem with respectto the number of activities.

Euclidean preferences are a widely studied preference model, in which decision makers and alternatives are embedded in d-dimensional Euclidean space. Decision makers prefer those alternatives closer to them. This model, also known as multidimensional unfolding, has applications in economics, psychometrics, marketing, and many other fields. We study the problem of deciding whether a given preference profile is d-Euclidean. For the one-dimensional case, polynomial-time algorithms are known. We show that, in contrast, for every other fixed dimension d > 1, the recognition problem is equivalent to the existential theory of the reals (ETR), and so in particular NP-hard. We further show that some Euclidean preference profiles require exponentially many bits in order to specify any Euclidean embedding, and prove that the domain of d-Euclidean preferences does not admit a finite forbidden minor characterisation for any d > 1. We also study dichotomous preferences and the behaviour of other metrics, and survey a variety of related work.

We introduce the domain of preferences that are single-peaked on a circle, which is a generalization of the well-studied single-peaked domain. This preference restriction is useful, e.g., for scheduling decisions, and for one-dimensional decisions in the presence of extremist preferences. We give a fast recognition algorithm of this domain, provide a characterisation by finitely many forbidden subprofiles, and show that many popular single- and multi-winner voting rules are polynomial-time computable on this domain. In contrast, Kemeny's rule remains hard to evaluate, and several impossibility results from social choice theory can be proved using only profiles that are single-peaked on a circle

We consider fair allocation of indivisible items under an additional constraint: there is an undirected graph describing the relationship between the items, and each agent's share must form a connected subgraph of this graph. This framework captures, e.g., fair allocation of land plots, where the graph describes the accessibility relation among the plots. We focus on agents that have additive utilities for the items, and consider several common fair division solution concepts, such as proportionality, envy-freeness and maximin share guarantee. While finding good allocations according to these solution concepts is computationally hard in general, we design efficient algorithms for special cases wherethe underlying graph has simple structure, and/or the number of agents---or, less restrictively, the number of agent types---is small. In particular, despite non-existence results in the general case, we prove that for acyclic graphs a maximin share allocation always exists and can be found efficiently.

We extend the principle of proportional representation to rankings: given approval preferences, we aim to generate aggregate rankings so that cohesive groups of voters are represented proportionally in each initial segment of the ranking. Such rankings are desirable in situations where initial segments of different lengths may be relevant, e.g., in recommender systems, for hiring decisions, or for the presentation of competing proposals on a liquid democracy platform. We define what it means for rankings to be proportional, provide bounds for well-known aggregation rules, and experimentally evaluate the performance of these rules.

Hedonic games provide a model of coalition formation in which a set of agents is partitioned into coalitions and the agents have preferences over which set they belong to. Recently, Aziz et. al. (2014) have initiated the study of hedonic games with dichotomous preferences, where each agent either approves or disapproves of a given coalition. In this work, we study the computational complexity of questions related to finding optimal and stable partitions in dichotomous hedonic games under various ways of restricting and representing the collection of approved coalitions. Encouragingly, many of these problems turn out to be polynomial-time solvable. In particular, we show that an individually stable outcome always exists and can be found in polynomial time. We also provide efficient algorithms for cases in which agents approve only few coalitions, in which they only approve intervals, and in which they only approve sets of size 2 (the roommates case). These algorithms are complemented by NP-hardness results, especially for representations that are very expressive, such as in the case when agents' goals are given by propositional formulas.

Hedonic games are a well-studied model of coalition formation, in which selfish agents are partitioned into disjoint sets and agents care about the make-up of the coalition they end up in. The computational problems of finding stable, optimal, or fair outcomes tend to be computationally intractable in even severely restricted instances of hedonic games. We introduce the notion of a graphical hedonic game and show that, in contrast, on classes of graphical hedonic games whose underlying graphs are of bounded treewidth and degree, such problems become easy. In particular, problems that can be specified through quantification over agents, coalitions, and (connected) partitions can be decided in linear time. The proof is by reduction to monadic second order logic. We also provide faster algorithms in special cases, and show that the extra condition of the degree bound cannot be dropped. Finally, we note that the problem of allocating indivisible goods can be modelled as a hedonic game, so that our results imply tractability of finding fair and efficient allocations on appropriately restricted instances.

Hedonic games are a well-studied model of coalition formation, in which selfish agents are partitioned into disjoint sets, and agents care about the make-up of the coalition they end up in. The computational problem of finding a stable outcome tends to be computationally intractable, even after severely restricting the types of preferences that agents are allowed to report. We investigate a structural way of achieving tractability, by requiring that agents' preferences interact in a well-behaved manner. Precisely, we show that stable outcomes can be found in linear time for hedonic games that satisfy a notion of bounded treewidth and bounded degree.

Preference profiles that are single-peaked on trees enjoy desirable properties: they admit a Condorcet winner (Demange 1982), and there are hard voting problems that become tractable on this domain (Yu et al., 2013). Trick (1989) proposed a polynomial-time algorithm that finds some tree with respect to which a given preference profile is single-peaked. However, some voting problems are only known to be easy for profiles that are single-peaked on "nice" trees, and Trick's algorithm provides no guarantees on the properties of the tree that it outputs. To overcome this issue, we build on the work of Trick and Yu et al. to develop a structural approach that enables us to compactly represent all trees with respect to which a given profile is single-peaked. We show how to use this representation to efficiently find the "best" tree for a given profile, according to a number of criteria; for other criteria, we obtain NP-hardness results. In particular, we show that it is NP-hard to decide whether an input profile is single-peaked with respect to a given tree. To demonstrate the applicability of our framework, we use it to identify a new class of profiles that admit an efficient algorithm for a popular variant of the Chamberlin-Courant rule.