This paper bridges two perspectives: it studies the multi-secretary problem through the fairness lens of social choice, and examines multi-winner elections from the viewpoint of online decision making. After identifying the limitations of the prominent proportionality notion of Extended Justified Representation (EJR) in the online domain, the work proposes a set of mechanisms that merge techniques from online algorithms with rules from social choice -- such as the Method of Equal Shares and the Nash Rule -- and supports them through both theoretical analysis and extensive experimental evaluation.

We study voting rules for participatory budgeting, where a group of voters collectively decides which projects should be funded using a common budget.

We study proportional representation in the framework of temporal voting with approval ballots. Prior work adapted basic proportional representation concepts -- justified representation (JR), proportional JR (PJR), and extended JR (EJR) -- from the multiwinner setting to the temporal setting. Our work introduces and examines ways of going beyond EJR. Specifically, we consider stronger variants of JR, PJR, and EJR, and introduce temporal adaptations of more demanding multiwinner axioms, such as EJR+, full JR (FJR), full proportional JR (FPJR), and the Core. For each of these concepts, we investigate its existence and study its relationship to existing notions, thereby establishing a rich hierarchy of proportionality concepts. Notably, we show that two of our proposed axioms -- EJR+ and FJR -- strengthen EJR while remaining satisfiable in every temporal election.

In multiwinner approval voting, forming a committee that proportionally represents voters' approval ballots is an essential task. The notion of justified representation (JR) demands that any large "cohesive" group of voters should be proportionally "represented". The "cohesiveness" is defined in different ways; two common ways are the following: (C1) demands that the group unanimously approves a set of candidates proportional to its size, while (C2) requires each member to approve at least a fixed fraction of such a set. Similarly, "representation" have been considered in different ways: (R1) the coalition's collective utility from the winning set exceeds that of any proportionally sized alternative, and (R2) for any proportionally sized alternative, at least one member of the coalition derives less utility from it than from the winning set. Three of the four possible combinations have been extensively studied: (C1)-(R1) defines Proportional Justified Representation (PJR), (C1)-(R2) defines Extended Justified Representation (EJR), (C2)-(R2) defines Full Justified Representation (FJR). All three have merits, but also drawbacks. PJR is the weakest notion, and perhaps not sufficiently demanding; EJR may not be compatible with perfect representation; and it is open whether a committee satisfying FJR can be found efficiently. We study the combination (C2)-(R1), which we call Full Proportional Justified Representation (FPJR). We investigate FPJR's properties and find that it shares PJR's advantages over EJR: several proportionality axioms (e.g. priceability, perfect representation) imply FPJR and PJR but not EJR. We also find that efficient rules like the greedy Monroe rule and the method of equal shares satisfy FPJR, matching a key advantage of EJR over FJR. However, the Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) rule may violate FPJR, so neither of EJR and FPJR implies the other.

In participatory budgeting (PB), voters decide through voting which subset of projects to fund within a given budget. Proportionality in the context of PB is crucial to ensure equal treatment of all groups of voters. However, pure proportional rules can sometimes lead to suboptimal outcomes. We introduce the Method of Equal Shares with Bounded Overspending (BOS Equal Shares), a robust variant of Equal Shares that balances proportionality and efficiency. BOS Equal Shares addresses inefficiencies inherent in strict proportionality guarantees yet still provides good proportionality similar to the original Method of Equal Shares. In the course of the analysis, we also discuss a fractional variant of the method which allows for partial funding of projects.

We consider a voting model, where a number of candidates need to be selected subject to certain feasibility constraints. The model generalises committee elections (where there is a single constraint on the number of candidates that need to be selected), various elections with diversity constraints, the model of public decisions (where decisions needs to be taken on a number of independent issues), and the model of collective scheduling. A critical property of voting is that it should be fair -- not only to individuals but also to groups of voters with similar opinions on the subject of the vote; in other words, the outcome of an election should proportionally reflect the voters' preferences. We formulate axioms of proportionality in this general model. Our axioms do not require predefining groups of voters; to the contrary, we ensure that the opinion of every subset of voters whose preferences are cohesive-enough are taken into account to the extent that is proportional to the size of the subset. Our axioms generalise the strongest known satisfiable axioms for the more specific models. We explain how to adapt two prominent committee election rules, Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) and Phragm\'{e}n Sequential Rule, as well as the concept of stable-priceability to our general model. The two rules satisfy our proportionality axioms if and only if the feasibility constraints are matroids.

We study the problem of fair sequential decision making given voter preferences. In each round, a decision rule must choose a decision from a set of alternatives where each voter reports which of these alternatives they approve. Instead of going with the most popular choice in each round, we aim for proportional representation. We formalize this aim using axioms based on Proportional Justified Representation (PJR), which were proposed in the literature on multi-winner voting and were recently adapted to multi-issue decision making. The axioms require that every group of $\alpha\%$ of the voters, if it agrees in every round (i.e., approves a common alternative), then those voters must approve at least $\alpha\%$ of the decisions. A stronger version of the axioms requires that every group of $\alpha\%$ of the voters that agrees in a $\beta$ fraction of rounds must approve $\beta\cdot\alpha\%$ of the decisions. We show that three attractive voting rules satisfy axioms of this style. One of them (Sequential Phragm\'en) makes its decisions online, and the other two satisfy strengthened versions of the axioms but make decisions semi-online (Method of Equal Shares) or fully offline (Proportional Approval Voting). The first two are polynomial-time computable, and the latter is based on an NP-hard optimization, but it admits a polynomial-time local search algorithm that satisfies the same axiomatic properties. We present empirical results about the performance of these rules based on synthetic data and U.S. political elections. We also run experiments where votes are cast by preference models trained on user responses from the moral machine dataset about ethical dilemmas.

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.