Multiwinner voting captures a wide variety of settings, from parliamentary elections in democratic systems to product placement in online shopping platforms. There is a large body of work dealing with axiomatic characterizations, computational complexity, and algorithmic analysis of multiwinner voting rules. Although many challenges remain, significant progress has been made in showing existence of fair and representative outcomes as well as efficient algorithmic solutions for many commonly studied settings. However, much of this work focuses on single-shot elections, even though in numerous real-world settings elections are held periodically and repeatedly. Hence, it is imperative to extend the study of multiwinner voting to temporal settings. Recently, there have been several efforts to address this challenge. However, these works are difficult to compare, as they model multi-period voting in very different ways. We propose a unified framework for studying temporal fairness in this domain, drawing connections with various existing bodies of work, and consolidating them within a general framework. We also identify gaps in existing literature, outline multiple opportunities for future work, and put forward a vision for the future of multiwinner voting in temporal settings.

This manuscript was a pleasure to discover, and a pleasure to read -- a broad, but succinct, overview of work in computational cooperative game theory. I will certainly use this text with my own students, both within courses and to provide comprehensive background for students in my research group. The authors have made a substantial contribution to the multiagent systems and algorithmic game theory communities.

A preference profile is single-peaked on a tree if the candidate set can be equipped with a tree structure so that the preferences of each voter are decreasing from their top candidate along all paths in the tree. This notion was introduced by Demange (1982), and subsequently Trick (1989b) described an efficient algorithm for deciding if a given profile is single-peaked on a tree. We study the complexity of multiwinner elections under several variants of the Chamberlin–Courant rule for preferences single-peaked on trees. We show that in this setting the egalitarian version of this rule admits a polynomial-time winner determination algorithm. For the utilitarian version, we prove that winner determination remains NP-hard for the Borda scoring function; indeed, this hardness results extends to a large family of scoring functions. However, a winning committee can be found in polynomial time if either the number of leaves or the number of internal vertices of the underlying tree is bounded by a constant. To benefit from these positive results, we need a procedure that can determine whether a given profile is single-peaked on a tree that has additional desirable properties (such as, e.g., a small number of leaves). To address this challenge, we 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 for use with our winner determination algorithms: Given a profile, we can efficiently find a tree with the minimum number of leaves, or a tree with the minimum number of internal vertices among trees on which the profile is single-peaked. We then explore the power and limitations of this framework: we develop polynomial-time algorithms to find trees with the smallest maximum degree, diameter, or pathwidth, but show that it is NP-hard to check whether a given profile is single-peaked on a tree that is isomorphic to a given tree, or on a regular tree.

A key issue in cooperative game theory is coalitional stability, usually captured by the notion of the core---the set of outcomes that are resistant to group deviations. However, some coalitional games have empty cores, and any outcome in such a game is unstable. We investigate the possibility of stabilizing a coalitional game by using subsidies. We consider scenarios where an external party that is interested in having the players work together offers a supplemental payment to the grand coalition, or, more generally, a particular coalition structure. This payment is conditional on players not deviating from this coalition structure, and may be divided among the players in any way they wish. We define the cost of stability as the minimum external payment that stabilizes the game. We provide tight bounds on the cost of stability, both for games where the coalitional values are nonnegative (profit-sharing games) and for games where the coalitional values are nonpositive (cost-sharing games), under natural assumptions on the characteristic function, such as superadditivity, anonymity, or both. We also investigate the relationship between the cost of stability and several variants of the least core. Finally, we study the computational complexity of problems related to the cost of stability, with a focus on weighted voting games.

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) can be defined as artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human intelligence. It is, in brief, the type of intelligence through which a machine is able to perform any intellectual task that a human being can. And, it is currently one of the main objectives of AI research. The concepts of AGI and consciousness, however, lack definitions that satisfy everyone. The type of artificial AI currently available is focused on specific tasks and is therefore referred to as "applied" or "narrow" AI because of the machines' limited intelligence.

One example of a sci-fi struggle to define AI consciousness is AMC's "Humans" (Tues. At this point in the series, human-like machines called Synths have become self-aware; as they band together in communities to live independent lives and define who they are, they must also battle for acceptance and survival against the hostile humans who created and used them. But what exactly might "consciousness" mean for artificial intelligence (AI) in the real world, and how close is AI to reaching that goal? Philosophers have described consciousness as having a unique sense of self coupled with an awareness of what's going on around you. And neuroscientists have offered their own perspective on how consciousness might be quantified, through analysis of a person's brain activity as it integrates and interprets sensory data.

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.

Euclidean preferences are a widely studied preference model, in which decision makers and alternatives are embedded in d-dimensional Euclidean space. Decision makers prefer those alternatives closer to them. This model, also known as multidimensional unfolding, has applications in economics, psychometrics, marketing, and many other fields. We study the problem of deciding whether a given preference profile is d -Euclidean. For the one-dimensional case, polynomial-time algorithms are known. We show that, in contrast, for every other fixed dimension d > 1, the recognition problem is equivalent to the existential theory of the reals (ETR), and so in particular NP-hard. We further show that some Euclidean preference profiles require exponentially many bits in order to specify any Euclidean embedding, and prove that the domain of d-Euclidean preferences does not admit a finite forbidden minor characterisation for any d > 1. We also study dichotomous preferences and the behaviour of other metrics, and survey a variety of related work.

Complexity of voting manipulation is a prominent research topic in computational social choice. The voting manipulation literature usually assumes that the manipulator is only concerned with improving the outcome of the election from her perspective. However, in practice, the manipulator may also be reluctant to lie, i.e., she may have a preference for submitting a vote that does not deviate too much from her true ranking of the candidates. In this paper, we study the complexity of finding a manipulative vote that achieves the manipulator's goal yet is as close as possible to her true preference order. We analyze this problem for three natural notions of closeness, namely, swap distance, footrule distance, and maximum displacement distance, and a variety of voting rules, such as scoring rules, Bucklin, Copeland, and Maximin. For all three distances, we obtain polynomial-time algorithms for all scoring rules and Bucklin and hardness results for Copeland and Maximin.

We consider the problem of manipulating elections by cloning candidates. In our model, a manipulator can replace each candidate c by several clones, i.e., new candidates that are so similar to c that each voter simply replaces c in his vote with a block of these new candidates, ranked consecutively. The outcome of the resulting election may then depend on the number of clones as well as on how each voter orders the clones within the block. We formalize what it means for a cloning manipulation to be successful (which turns out to be a surprisingly delicate issue), and, for a number of common voting rules, characterize the preference profiles for which a successful cloning manipulation exists. We also consider the model where there is a cost associated with producing each clone, and study the complexity of finding a minimum-cost cloning manipulation. Finally, we compare cloning with two related problems: the problem of control by adding candidates and the problem of possible (co)winners when new alternatives can join.