IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2308.07268.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fault Tolerance in Euclidean Committee Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Chinmay Sonar
  • Subhash Suri
  • Jie Xue

Abstract

In the committee selection problem, the goal is to choose a subset of size $k$ from a set of candidates $C$ that collectively gives the best representation to a set of voters. We consider this problem in Euclidean $d$-space where each voter/candidate is a point and voters' preferences are implicitly represented by Euclidean distances to candidates. We explore fault-tolerance in committee selection and study the following three variants: (1) given a committee and a set of $f$ failing candidates, find their optimal replacement; (2) compute the worst-case replacement score for a given committee under failure of $f$ candidates; and (3) design a committee with the best replacement score under worst-case failures. The score of a committee is determined using the well-known (min-max) Chamberlin-Courant rule: minimize the maximum distance between any voter and its closest candidate in the committee. Our main results include the following: (1) in one dimension, all three problems can be solved in polynomial time; (2) in dimension $d \geq 2$, all three problems are NP-hard; and (3) all three problems admit a constant-factor approximation in any fixed dimension, and the optimal committee problem has an FPT bicriterion approximation.

Suggested Citation

  • Chinmay Sonar & Subhash Suri & Jie Xue, 2023. "Fault Tolerance in Euclidean Committee Selection," Papers 2308.07268, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2308.07268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.07268
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Skowron, Piotr & Faliszewski, Piotr & Slinko, Arkadii, 2019. "Axiomatic characterization of committee scoring rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 244-273.
    2. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    3. Kamesh Munagala & Zeyu Shen & Kangning Wang, 2021. "Optimal Algorithms for Multiwinner Elections and the Chamberlin-Courant Rule," Papers 2106.00091, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gabon Gassi & Eric Kamwa, 2024. "On the price of diversity for multiwinner elections under (weakly) separable scoring rules," Working Papers 2024-02, CRESE.
    2. Sylvain Béal & Marc Deschamps & Mostapha Diss & Rodrigue Tido Takeng, 2024. "Multiwinner elections with diversity constraints on individual preferences," Working Papers 2024-07, CRESE.
    3. Chris Dong & Patrick Lederer, 2023. "Refined Characterizations of Approval-based Committee Scoring Rules," Papers 2312.08799, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    4. Martin Lackner & Piotr Skowron, 2017. "Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rules," Papers 1704.02453, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    5. Clinton Gubong Gassi, 2024. "Weighted scoring rules for selecting a compatible committee," Working Papers 2024-04, CRESE.
    6. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2023. "Combining diversity and excellence in multi winner elections," Working Papers 2023-05, CRESE.
    7. David McCune & Erin Martin & Grant Latina & Kaitlyn Simms, 2023. "A Comparison of Sequential Ranked-Choice Voting and Single Transferable Vote," Papers 2306.17341, arXiv.org.
    8. Haris Aziz & Sujit Gujar & Manisha Padala & Mashbat Suzuki & Jeremy Vollen, 2022. "Coordinating Monetary Contributions in Participatory Budgeting," Papers 2206.05966, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    9. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 358-382, July.
    10. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    11. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    12. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    13. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers halshs-01817943, HAL.
    14. Joshua C. Yang & Marcin Korecki & Damian Dailisan & Carina I. Hausladen & Dirk Helbing, 2024. "LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making," Papers 2402.01766, arXiv.org.
    15. Egor Ianovski, 2022. "Electing a committee with dominance constraints," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 985-1000, November.
    16. Davide Grossi, 2021. "Lecture Notes on Voting Theory," Papers 2105.00216, arXiv.org.
    17. Kurz, Sascha & Mayer, Alexander & Napel, Stefan, 2021. "Influence in weighted committees," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    18. Pivato, Marcus & Soh, Arnold, 2020. "Weighted representative democracy," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 52-63.
    19. David McCune & Adam Graham-Squire, 2023. "Monotonicity Anomalies in Scottish Local Government Elections," Papers 2305.17741, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    20. Daniela Bubboloni & Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2020. "Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 151-185, April.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2308.07268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.