Some crowdsourcing platforms ask workers to express their opinions by approving a set of k good alternatives. It seems that the only reasonable way to aggregate these k -approval votes is the approval voting rule, which simply counts the number of times each alternative was approved. We challenge this assertion by proposing a probabilistic framework of noisy voting, and asking whether approval voting yields an alternative that is most likely to be the best alternative, given k -approval votes. While the answer is generally positive, our theoretical and empirical results call attention to situations where approval voting is suboptimal.

We introduce a multi-winner reconfiguration model to examine how to transition between subsets of alternatives (aka. We analyze this model under four approval-based voting rules: Chamberlin-Courant (CC), Proportional Approval Voting (PAV), Approval Voting (AV), and Satisfaction Approval Voting (SAV). The problem exhibits computational intractability for CC and PAV, and polynomial solvability for AV and SAV. We provide a detailed multivariate complexity analysis for CC and PAV, demonstrating that although the problem remains challenging in many scenarios, there are specific cases that allow for efficient parameterized algorithms.

After more than two decades of extensive study on the complexity of single-winner voting problems, the computational social choice community has recently shifted its primary focus to multiwinner voting, given its generality and broad applications. In particular, many variants of manipulation, control, and bribery problems for approval-based multiwinner voting rules (ABM rules for short) have been studied from a complexity point of view (see e.g., [2, 27, 48, 55]). Existing works in this line of research predominantly concern the constructive model of these problems, which models scenarios where a strategic agent attempts to elevate a single distinguished candidate to winner status, or make a committee a winning committee. However, the destructive counterparts of these problems have not been adequately studied in the literature so far. This paper studies the complexity and the parameterized complexity of several destructive bribery problems for ABM rules. These problems are designed to capture scenarios where an election attacker (or briber) aims to prevent multiple distinguished candidates from winning by making changes to the votes (e.g., by bribing some voters to alter their votes) under certain budget constraints. The attacker's motivation may stem from these distinguished candidates being rivals (e.g., having completely different political views from the attacker), or the attacker attempting to make them lose to increase the winning chance of her preferred candidates. We consider five bribery operations categorized into two classes: atomic operations and vote-level operations.

This work examines the Conditional Approval Framework for elections involving multiple interdependent issues, specifically focusing on the Conditional Minisum Approval Voting Rule. We first conduct a detailed analysis of the computational complexity of this rule, demonstrating that no approach can significantly outperform the brute-force algorithm under common computational complexity assumptions and various natural input restrictions. In response, we propose two practical restrictions (the first in the literature) that make the problem computationally tractable and show that these restrictions are essentially tight. Overall, this work provides a clear picture of the tractability landscape of the problem, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the complications introduced by conditional ballots and indicating that conditional approval voting can be applied in practice, albeit under specific conditions.

Multiwinner voting rules can be used to select a fixed-size committee from a larger set of candidates. We consider approval-based committee rules, which allow voters to approve or disapprove candidates. In this setting, several voting rules such as Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) and Phragm\'en's rules have been shown to produce committees that are proportional, in the sense that they proportionally represent voters' preferences; all of these rules are strategically manipulable by voters. On the other hand, a generalisation of Approval Voting gives a non-proportional but strategyproof voting rule. We show that there is a fundamental tradeoff between these two properties: we prove that no multiwinner voting rule can simultaneously satisfy a weak form of proportionality (a weakening of justified representation) and a weak form of strategyproofness. Our impossibility is obtained using a formulation of the problem in propositional logic and applying SAT solvers; a human-readable version of the computer-generated proof is obtained by extracting a minimal unsatisfiable set (MUS). We also discuss several related axiomatic questions in the domain of committee elections.

Limited Voting (LV) is an approval-based method for multi-winner elections where all ballots are required to have a same fixed size. While it appears to be used as voting method in corporate governance and has some political applications, to the best of our knowledge, no formal analysis of the rule exists to date. We provide such an analysis here, prompted by a request for advice about this voting rule by a health insurance company in the Netherlands, which uses it to elect its work council. We study conditions under which LV would improve representation over standard approval voting and when it would not. We establish the extent of such an improvement, or lack thereof, both in terms of diversity and proportionality notions. These results help us understand if, and how, LV may be used as a low-effort fix of approval voting in order to enhance representation.

Some crowdsourcing platforms ask workers to express their opinions by approving a set of k good alternatives. It seems that the only reasonable way to aggregate these k-approval votes is the approval voting rule, which simply counts the number of times each alternative was approved. We challenge this assertion by proposing a probabilistic framework of noisy voting, and asking whether approval voting yields an alternative that is most likely to be the best alternative, given k-approval votes. While the answer is generally positive, our theoretical and empirical results call attention to situations where approval voting is suboptimal.

We study the parameterized complexity of winner determination problems for three prevalent $k$-committee selection rules, namely the minimax approval voting (MAV), the proportional approval voting (PAV), and the Chamberlin-Courant's approval voting (CCAV). It is known that these problems are computationally hard. Although they have been studied from the parameterized complexity point of view with respect to several natural parameters, many of them turned out to be W[1]-hard or W[2]-hard. Aiming at obtaining plentiful fixed-parameter algorithms, we revisit these problems by considering more natural single parameters, combined parameters, and structural parameters.

Approval voting provides a simple, practical framework for multi-issue elections, and the most representative example among such election rules is the classic Minisum approval voting rule. We consider a generalization of Minisum, introduced by the work of Barrot and Lang [2016], referred to as Conditional Minisum, where voters are also allowed to express dependencies between issues. The price we have to pay when we move to this higher level of expressiveness is that we end up with a computationally hard rule. Motivated by this, we focus on the computational aspects of Conditional Minisum, where progress has been rather scarce so far. We identify restrictions that concern the voters' dependencies and the value of an optimal solution, under which we provide the first multiplicative approximation algorithms for the problem. At the same time, by additionally requiring certain structural properties for the union of dependencies cast by the whole electorate, we obtain optimal efficient algorithms for well-motivated special cases. Overall, our work provides a better understanding on the complexity implications introduced by conditional voting.

Epistemic social choice aims at unveiling a hidden ground truth given votes, which are interpreted as noisy signals about it. We consider here a simple setting where votes consist of approval ballots: each voter approves a set of alternatives which they believe can possibly be the ground truth. Based on the intuitive idea that more reliable votes contain fewer alternatives, we define several noise models that are approval voting variants of the Mallows model. The likelihood-maximizing alternative is then characterized as the winner of a weighted approval rule, where the weight of a ballot decreases with its cardinality. We have conducted an experiment on three image annotation datasets; they conclude that rules based on our noise model outperform standard approval voting; the best performance is obtained by a variant of the Condorcet noise model.