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.

We consider the problem of selecting a fixed-size committee based on approval ballots. It is desirable to have a committee in which all voters are fairly represented. Aziz et al. (2015a; 2017) proposed an axiom called extended justified representation (EJR), which aims to capture this intuition; subsequently, Sanchez-Fernandez et al. (2017) proposed a weaker variant of this axiom called proportional justified representation (PJR). It was shown that it is coNP-complete to check whether a given committee provides EJR, and it was conjectured that it is hard to find a committee that provides EJR. In contrast, there are polynomial-time computable voting rules that output committees providing PJR, but the complexity of checking whether a given committee provides PJR was an open problem. In this paper, we answer open questions from prior work by showing that EJR and PJR have the same worst-case complexity: we provide two polynomial-time algorithms that output committees providing EJR, yet we show that it is coNP-complete to decide whether a given committee provides PJR. We complement the latter result by fixed-parameter tractability results.

The goal of multi-winner elections is to choose a fixed-size committee based on voters’ preferences. An important concern in this setting is representation: large groups of voters with cohesive preferences should be adequately represented by the election winners. Recently, Aziz et al. proposed two axioms that aim to capture this idea: justified representation (JR) and its strengthening extended justified representation (EJR). In this paper, we extend the work of Aziz et al. in several directions. First, we answer an open question of Aziz et al., by showing that Reweighted Approval Voting satisfies JR for k = 3; 4; 5, but fails it for k >= 6. Second, we observe that EJR is incompatible with the Perfect Representation criterion, which is important for many applications of multi-winner voting, and propose a relaxation of EJR, which we call Proportional Justified Representation (PJR). PJR is more demanding than JR, but, unlike EJR, it is compatible with perfect representation, and a committee that provides PJR can be computed in polynomial time if the committee size divides the number of voters. Moreover, just like EJR, PJR can be used to characterize the classic PAV rule in the class of weighted PAV rules. On the other hand, we show that EJR provides stronger guarantees with respect to average voter satisfaction than PJR does.

We visualize aggregate outputs of popular multiwinner voting rules — SNTV, STV, Bloc, k-Borda, Monroe, Chamberlin–Courant, and PAV — for elections generated according to the two-dimensional Euclidean model. We consider three applications of multiwinner voting, namely, parliamentary elections, portfolio/movie selection, and shortlisting, and use our results to understand which of our rules seem to be best suited for each application. In particular, we show that STV (one of the few nontrivial rules used in real high-stake elections) exhibits excellent performance, whereas the Bloc rule (also often used in practice) performs poorly.

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.

We consider voting under metric preferences: both voters and candidates are associated with points in a metric space, and each voter prefers candidates that are closer to her to ones that are further away. In this setting, it is often desirable to select a candidate that minimizes the sum of distances to the voters. However, common voting rules operate on voters' preference rankings and therefore may be unable to identify the best candidate. A relevant measure of the quality of a voting rule is then its distortion, defined as the worst-case ratio between the performance of a candidate selected by the rule and that of an optimal candidate. Anshelevich, Bhardwaj and Postl show that some popular rules such as Borda and Plurality do badly in this regard: their distortion scales linearly with the number of candidates. On the positive side, Anshelevich et al. identify a few voting rules whose distortion is bounded by a constant; however, these rules are rarely used in practice. In this paper, we analyze the distortion of two widely used (classes of) voting rules, namely, scoring rules and Single Transferable Vote (STV). We show that all scoring rules have super-constant distortion, answering a question that was left open by Anshelevich et al.; however, we identify a scoring rule whose distortion is asymptotically better than that of Plurality and Borda. For STV, we obtain an upper bound of O (log m ), where m is the number of candidates, as well as a super-constant lower bound; thus, STV is a reasonable, though not a perfect rule from this perspective.

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.

Hedonic games provide a natural model of coalition formation among self-interested agents. The associated problem of finding stable outcomes in such games has been extensively studied. In this paper, we identify simple conditions on expressivity of hedonic games that are sufficient for the problem of checking whether a given game admits a stable outcome to be computationally hard. Somewhat surprisingly, these conditions are very mild and intuitive. Our results apply to a wide range of stability concepts (core stability, individual stability, Nash stability, etc.) and to many known formalisms for hedonic games (additively separable games, games with W-preferences, fractional hedonic games, etc.), and unify and extend known results for these formalisms. They also have broader applicability: for several classes of hedonic games whose computational complexity has not been explored in prior work, we show that our framework immediately implies a number of hardness results for them.

We consider approval-based committee voting, i.e., the setting where each voter approves a subset of candidates, and these votes are then used to select a fixed-size set of winners (committee). We propose a natural axiom for this setting, which we call justified representation (JR). This axiom requires that if a large enough group of voters exhibits agree- ment by supporting the same candidate, then at least one voter in this group has an approved candidate in the winning committee. We show that for every list of ballots it is possible to select a committee that provides JR. We then check if this axiom is fulfilled by well-known approval-based voting rules. We show that the answer is negative for most of the rules we consider, with notable exceptions of PAV (Proportional Approval Voting), an extreme version of RAV (Reweighted Approval Voting), and, for a restricted preference domain, MAV (Minimax Approval Voting). We then introduce a stronger version of the JR axiom, which we call extended justified representation (EJR), and show that PAV satisfies EJR, while other rules do not. We also consider several other questions related to JR and EJR, including the relationship between JR/EJR and unanimity, and the complexity of the associated algorithmic problems.

We study the complexity of deciding if a given profile of incomplete votes (i.e., a profile of partial orders over a given set of alternatives) can be extended to a single-crossing profile of complete votes (total orders). This problem models settings where we have partial knowledge regarding voters' preferences and we would like to understand whether the given preference profile may be single-crossing. We show that this problem admits a polynomial-time algorithm when the order of votes is fixed and the input profile consists of top orders, but becomes NP-complete if we are allowed to permute the votes and the input profile consists of weak orders or independent-pairs orders. Also, we identify a number of practical special cases of both problems that admit polynomial-time algorithms.