Jiehua Chen

Jiehua Chen, Christian Hatschka

Multi-winner approval voting selects a size-$k$ committee that aggregates voters' approval preferences over a set of alternatives. A central question is coalitional stability: No coalition should be able to pick a committee -- of size at most its proportional share -- under which every coalition member has strictly more approved alternatives. This notion, introduced by Aziz et al. (2017) as core-stable committees, is naturally interpreted as a core notion with non-transferable utility. We introduce multi-winner voting games, a cooperative-game framework that unifies prior work and supports a systematic study of two utility-transfer models across different voting rules. Players are voters. Each coalition has a proportional seat cap and may only propose admissible committees up to that size. Fixing a multi-winner rule, each admissible committee induces a utility vector for the members of the coalition. In the transferable utility (TU) model, a coalition may redistribute the total utility of an admissible committee among its members. In the non-transferable utility (NTU) model, a coalition may only use utility vectors that are realized directly by some admissible committee. The core consists of utility vectors feasible for the grand coalition that are not blocked by any coalition. A coalition is blocking if it can propose an admissible committee that makes all its members strictly better off, directly in NTU and after redistribution in TU. When instantiated with the standard PAV/approval utility, the NTU-core is equivalent to the core-stable committee concept studied in prior work. To our knowledge, the TU-core for multi-winner voting has not been previously studied. We analyze core existence and computation for four prominent rules: Approval Voting (AV), Satisfaction Approval Voting (SAV), Chamberlin--Courant (CC), Proportional Approval Voting (PAV).

Jiehua Chen

We consider the median procedure (Barthelemy and Monjardet, 1981) that aggregates a sequence n of binary relations from some input class into a single binary relation from some (possibly different) output class, minimizing the number of disagreed order pairs. We show that if the output class should be a dichotomous weak order (2-WO), then the problem is polynomial-time solvable.

Jiehua Chen, Sanjukta Roy

Answering an open question by Betzler et al. [Betzler et al., JAIR'13], we resolve the parameterized complexity of the multi-winner determination problem under two famous representation voting rules: the Chamberlin-Courant (in short CC) rule [Chamberlin and Courant, APSR'83] and the Monroe rule [Monroe, APSR'95]. We show that under both rules, the problem is W[1]-hard with respect to the sum $β$ of misrepresentations, thereby precluding the existence of any $f(β) \cdot |I|^{O(1)}$ -time algorithm, where $|I|$ denotes the size of the input instance.

Jiehua Chen, Martin Lackner, Jan Maly

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process where citizens jointly decide on how to allocate public funds to indivisible projects. This paper focuses on PB processes where citizens may give additional money to projects they want to see funded. We introduce a formal framework for this kind of PB with donations. Our framework also allows for diversity constraints, meaning that each project belongs to one or more types, and there are lower and upper bounds on the number of projects of the same type that can be funded. We propose three general classes of methods for aggregating the citizens' preferences in the presence of donations and analyze their axiomatic properties. Furthermore, we investigate the computational complexity of determining the outcome of a PB process with donations and of finding a citizen's optimal donation strategy.

Jiehua Chen, Piotr Faliszewski, Rolf Niedermeier et al.

We study the computational complexity of candidate control in elections with few voters, that is, we consider the parameterized complexity of candidate control in elections with respect to the number of voters as a parameter. We consider both the standard scenario of adding and deleting candidates, where one asks whether a given candidate can become a winner (or, in the destructive case, can be precluded from winning) by adding or deleting few candidates, as well as a combinatorial scenario where adding/deleting a candidate automatically means adding or deleting a whole group of candidates. Considering several fundamental voting rules, our results show that the parameterized complexity of candidate control, with the number of voters as the parameter, is much more varied than in the setting with many voters.