On the complexity of Winner Verification and Candidate Winner for Multiwinner Voting Rules

The Chamberlin-Courant and Monroe rules are fundamental and well-studied rules in the literature of multi-winner elections. The problem of determining if there exists a committee of size k that has a Chamberlin-Courant (respectively, Monroe) score of at most r is known to be NP-complete. We consider the following natural problems in this setting: a) given a committee S of size k as input, is it an optimal k-sized committee, and b) given a candidate c and a committee size k, does there exist an optimal k-sized committee that contains c? In this work, we resolve the complexity of both problems for the Chamberlin-Courant and Monroe voting rules in the settings of rankings as well as approval ballots. We show that verifying if a given committee is optimal is coNP-complete whilst the latter problem is complete for $\Theta_{2}^{P}$. We also demonstrate efficient algorithms for the second problem when the input consists of single-peaked rankings. Our contribution fills an essential gap in the literature for these important multi-winner rules.

[1]  John R. Chamberlin,et al.  Representative Deliberations and Representative Decisions: Proportional Representation and the Borda Rule , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[2]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  On the complexity of achieving proportional representation , 2008, Soc. Choice Welf..

[3]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  The complexity of fully proportional representation for single-crossing electorates , 2013, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[4]  Edith Hemaspaandra,et al.  The complexity of Kemeny elections , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[5]  J. van Leeuwen,et al.  Theoretical Computer Science , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Structure in Dichotomous Preferences , 2015, IJCAI.

[7]  Martin Lackner,et al.  Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rules , 2017, EC.

[8]  Lane A. Hemaspaandra,et al.  The Strong Exponential Hierarchy Collapses , 1987, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[9]  S. Shapiro,et al.  Mathematics without Numbers , 1993 .

[10]  Nadja Betzler,et al.  On the Computation of Fully Proportional Representation , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[11]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Social Choice : From Consensus to Personalized Decision Making , 2011 .

[12]  Lane A. Hemachandra,et al.  The strong exponential hierarchy collapses , 1989 .

[13]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Finding a collective set of items: From proportional multirepresentation to group recommendation , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Robustness Among Multiwinner Voting Rules , 2017, SAGT.

[15]  Klaus W. Wagner,et al.  Bounded Query Classes , 1990, SIAM J. Comput..

[16]  E. Lindsay,et al.  Chapter 10 , 1994, Genji & Heike.

[17]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , 2018, EC.

[18]  Burt L. Monroe,et al.  Fully Proportional Representation , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[19]  P. Pattanaik,et al.  Social choice and welfare , 1983 .

[20]  Jstor The American political science review , 2022 .

[21]  M. Trick,et al.  Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election , 1989 .

[22]  M. Panella Associate Editor of the Journal of Computer and System Sciences , 2014 .