Dominik Peters

Nikhil Chandak, Shashwat Goel, Dominik Peters

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 across rounds, using axioms inspired by the multi-winner voting literature. The axioms require that every group of $α\%$ of the voters that agrees in every round (i.e., approves a common alternative), 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 $β\cdotα\%$ 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.

Patrick Becker, Matthias Greger, Dominik Peters

In an approval-based committee election, the task is to select a committee of up to $k$ candidates from a set of $m$ candidates based on the preferences of $n$ voters, each of whom approves a subset of the candidates. A central open question is whether there always exists a committee in the core, a stability notion capturing proportional representation. We prove core non-emptiness for all approval-based committee elections with at most five voters. The proof is based on affine monoid methods and shows that, for $n\le5$, every fractional committee admits a deterministic rounding to an integral committee that preserves each voter's utility up to floors. We extend our argument to the weighted voter setting, which implies core existence for instances with up to five distinct approval sets. In all these cases, a core committee can be computed in polynomial time. We show that our technique cannot be extended as-is: our rounding method breaks down for $n=6$, and for $n=3$ when applied to more general models with additive valuations or non-unit candidate costs.

Piotr Skowron, Martin Lackner, Markus Brill et al.

In this paper we extend the principle of proportional representation to rankings. We consider the setting where alternatives need to be ranked based on approval preferences. In this setting, proportional representation requires that cohesive groups of voters are represented proportionally in each initial segment of the ranking. Proportional rankings are desirable in situations where initial segments of different lengths may be relevant, e.g., hiring decisions (if it is unclear how many positions are to be filled), the presentation of competing proposals on a liquid democracy platform (if it is unclear how many proposals participants are taking into consideration), or recommender systems (if a ranking has to accommodate different user types). We study the proportional representation provided by several ranking methods and prove theoretical guarantees. Furthermore, we experimentally evaluate these methods and present preliminary evidence as to which methods are most suitable for producing proportional rankings.

Andres Abeliuk, Haris Aziz, Gerardo Berbeglia et al.

We propose a model of interdependent scheduling games in which each player controls a set of services that they schedule independently. A player is free to schedule his own services at any time; however, each of these services only begins to accrue reward for the player when all predecessor services, which may or may not be controlled by the same player, have been activated. This model, where players have interdependent services, is motivated by the problems faced in planning and coordinating large-scale infrastructures, e.g., restoring electricity and gas to residents after a natural disaster or providing medical care in a crisis when different agencies are responsible for the delivery of staff, equipment, and medicine. We undertake a game-theoretic analysis of this setting and in particular consider the issues of welfare maximization, computing best responses, Nash dynamics, and existence and computation of Nash equilibria.