Selecting Matchings via Multiwinner Voting: How Structure Defeats a Large Candidate Space

Given a set of agents with approval preferences over each other, we study the task of finding k matchings fairly representing everyone’s preferences. We model the problem as an approval-based multiwinner election where the set of candidates consists of matchings of the agents, and agents’ preferences over each other are lifted to preferences over matchings. Due to the exponential number of candidates in such elections, standard algorithms for classical sequential voting rules (such as those proposed by Thiele and Phragmén) are rendered inefficient. We show that the computational tractability of these rules can be regained by exploiting the structure of the approval preferences. Moreover, we establish algorithmic results and axiomatic guarantees that go beyond those obtainable in the general multiwinner setting. Assuming that approvals are symmetric, we show that Proportional Approval Voting (PAV), a well-established but computationally intractable voting rule, becomes polynomial-time computable, and its sequential variant (seqPAV ), which does not provide any proportionality guarantees in general, fulfills a rather strong guarantee known as extended justified representation. Some of our algorithmic results extend to other types of compactly representable elections with an exponential candidate space.

[1]  Ágnes Cseh Popular Matchings , 2017 .

[2]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Approximately stable committee selection , 2020, STOC.

[3]  Joachim Gudmundsson,et al.  Computational Aspects of Multi-Winner Approval Voting , 2014, MPREF@AAAI.

[4]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[5]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  The Stability of Hedonic Coalition Structures , 2002, Games Econ. Behav..

[6]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Proportional Justified Representation , 2016, AAAI.

[7]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Fair Allocation of Indivisible Public Goods , 2018, EC.

[8]  Ian Holyer,et al.  The NP-Completeness of Edge-Coloring , 1981, SIAM J. Comput..

[9]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Fair Division under Ordinal Preferences: Computing Envy-Free Allocations of Indivisible Goods , 2010, ECAI.

[10]  Haris Aziz,et al.  Justified representation in approval-based committee voting , 2014, Social Choice and Welfare.

[11]  Edith Elkind,et al.  On the Complexity of Extended and Proportional Justified Representation , 2018, AAAI.

[12]  Barton E. Lee,et al.  Proportionally Representative Participatory Budgeting with Ordinal Preferences , 2019, ArXiv.

[13]  Paul Harrenstein,et al.  Fractional Hedonic Games , 2014, AAMAS.

[14]  Lirong Xia,et al.  Voting in Combinatorial Domains , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[15]  Jean-François Laslier,et al.  Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods , 2016, AAAI.

[16]  Svante Janson,et al.  Phragmén's and Thiele's election methods , 2016, ArXiv.

[17]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Fair assignment of indivisible objects under ordinal preferences , 2013, AAMAS.

[18]  Jens Vygen,et al.  The Book Review Column1 , 2020, SIGACT News.

[19]  Svante Janson,et al.  Phragmén’s voting methods and justified representation , 2017, AAAI.

[20]  Dominik Peters,et al.  Proportionality and the Limits of Welfarism , 2020, EC.

[21]  P. Hall On Representatives of Subsets , 1935 .

[22]  Ettore Damiano,et al.  Stability in dynamic matching markets , 2005, Games Econ. Behav..

[23]  Dennis G. Severance,et al.  Mathematical Techniques for Efficient Record Segmentation in Large Shared Databases , 1976, JACM.

[24]  Yann Chevaleyre,et al.  Preference Handling in Combinatorial Domains: From AI to Social Choice , 2008, AI Mag..

[25]  Martin Lackner,et al.  Perpetual Voting: Fairness in Long-Term Decision Making , 2020, AAAI.

[26]  Francesco Bonchi,et al.  Fair-by-design matching , 2020, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[27]  H. Moulin,et al.  Random Matching under Dichotomous Preferences , 2004 .

[28]  David Manlove,et al.  Algorithmics of Matching Under Preferences , 2013, Bull. EATCS.

[29]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Stable Roommate Problem with Diversity Preferences , 2020, AAMAS.

[30]  J. Edmonds Paths, Trees, and Flowers , 1965, Canadian Journal of Mathematics.

[31]  P. Gärdenfors Match making: Assignments based on bilateral preferences , 1975 .

[32]  Martin Lackner,et al.  Approval-Based Committee Voting: Axioms, Algorithms, and Applications , 2020, ArXiv.

[33]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Group Fairness in Committee Selection , 2019, EC.

[34]  Dominik Peters,et al.  Market-Based Explanations of Collective Decisions , 2021, AAAI.