We consider the problem of winner determination under Chamberlin--Courant's multiwinner voting rule with approval utilities. This problem is equivalent to the well-known NP-complete MaxCover problem and, so, the best polynomial-time approximation algorithm for it has approximation ratio 1 - 1/e. We show exponential-time/FPT approximation algorithms that, on one hand, achieve arbitrarily good approximation ratios and, on the other hand, have running times much better than known exact algorithms. We focus on the cases where the voters have to approve of at most/at least a given number of candidates.

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.

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 characterize the class of committee scoring rules that satisfy the fixed-majority criterion. In some sense, the committee scoring rules in this class are multiwinner analogues of the single-winner Plurality rule, which is uniquely characterized as the only single-winner scoring rule that satisfies the simple majority criterion. We find that, for most of the rules in our new class, the complexity of winner determination is high (i.e., the problem of computing the winners is NP-hard), but we also show some examples of polynomial-time winner determination procedures, exact and approximate.

We study the (parameterized) complexity of Shift Bribery for multiwinner voting rules. We focus on the SNTV, Bloc, k-Borda, and Chamberlin-Courant rules, as well as on approximate variants of the Chamberlin-Courant rule, since the original rule is NP-hard to compute. We show that Shift Bribery tends to be significantly harder in the multiwinner setting than in the single-winner one by showing settings where Shift Bribery is easy in the single-winner cases, but is hard (and hard to approximate) in the multiwinner ones. We show that the non-monotonicity of those rules which are based on approximation algorithms for the Chamberlin--Courant rule sometimes affects the complexity of Shift Bribery.

We consider the problem of winner determination under Chamberlin--Courant's multiwinner voting rule with approval utilities. This problem is equivalent to the well-known NP-complete MaxCover problem (i.e., a version of the SetCover problem where we aim to cover as many elements as possible) and, so, the best polynomial-time approximation algorithm for it has approximation ratio 1 - 1/e. We show exponential-time/FPT approximation algorithms that, on one hand, achieve arbitrarily good approximation ratios and, on the other hand, have running times much better than known exact algorithms. We focus on the cases where the voters have to approve of at most/at least a given number of candidates.

We consider the following problem: There is a set of items (e.g., movies) and a group of agents (e.g., passengers on a plane); each agent has some intrinsic utility for each of the items. Our goal is to pick a set of K items that maximize the total derived utility of all the agents (i.e., in our example we are to pick K movies that we put on the plane's entertainment system). However, the actual utility that an agent derives from a given item is only a fraction of its intrinsic one, and this fraction depends on how the agent ranks the item among the chosen, available, ones. We provide a formal specification of the model and provide concrete examples and settings where it is applicable. We show that the problem is hard in general, but we show a number of tractability results for its natural special cases.

We study the computational complexity of candidate control in elections with few voters (that is, we take the number of voters as a parameter). We consider both the standard scenario of adding and deleting candidates, where one asks if a given candidate can become a winner (or, in the destructive case, can be precluded from winning) by adding/deleting some candidates, and a combinatorial scenario where adding/deleting a candidate automatically means adding/deleting a whole group of candidates. 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.

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.

In the Shift Bribery problem, we are given an election (based on preference orders), a preferred candidate p, and a budget. The goal is to ensure that p wins by shifting p higher in some voters' preference orders. However, each such shift request comes at a price (depending on the voter and on the extent of the shift) and we must not exceed the given budget. We study the parameterized computational complexity of Shift Bribery with respect to a number of parameters (pertaining to the nature of the solution sought and the size of the election) and several classes of price functions. When we parameterize Shift Bribery by the number of affected voters, then for each of our voting rules (Borda, Maximin, Copeland) the problem is W[2]-hard. If, instead, we parameterize by the number of positions by which p is shifted in total, then the problem is fixed-parameter tractable for Borda and Maximin, and is W[1]-hard for Copeland. If we parameterize by the budget for the cost of shifting, then the results depend on the price function class. We also show that Shift Bribery tends to be tractable when parameterized by the number of voters, but that the results for the number of candidates are more enigmatic.