Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 37 references

Selecting Interlacing Committees

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Committee polarization becomes measurable: PAIRS and CONS score how well a committee interlaces voters, with exact algorithmic and trade-off results.

desk verdict Solid theory paper: new PAIRS and CONS objectives for polarization-aware committees, clean NP-hardness/tractability results, tight trade-offs with AV/CC/EJR; only minor presentation gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02519 v1 pith:4WQCFF5Z submitted 2025-09-02 cs.GT

Chris Dong , Martin Bullinger , Tomasz Wąs , Larry Birnbaum , Edith Elkind This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 91B1291B1468Q17
keywords committeeselectionmultiwinnervotingapproval-basedpreferencespolarizationvoter-candidateintervaldomainNP-hardnessapproximationtrade-offsextendedjustifiedrepresentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to make polarization a formal property of an elected committee rather than a mood of the electorate. It proposes two objectives: $\mathrm{PAIRS}$ counts pairs of voters who approve a common selected candidate, and $\mathrm{CONS}$ counts pairs who are connected by a chain of shared selected candidates; both are meant to reward committees that interlace the electorate instead of splitting it into opposing blocs. The main theoretical claim is that these objectives are worth taking seriously: maximizing either is NP-complete on arbitrary approval profiles, yet both can be maximized in polynomial time on one-dimensional voter-candidate interval (VCI) profiles, where voters and candidates are intervals on a line. The paper then shows that interlacing cannot be combined with standard objectives for free: a rule guaranteeing $\alpha$-$\mathrm{PAIRS}$ and $\beta$-$\mathrm{AV}$, $\beta$-$\mathrm{CC}$, or $\beta$-EJR must satisfy $\alpha+\beta\le 1$, while the corresponding bound for $\mathrm{CONS}$ is $\alpha^2+\beta\le 1$, with a subtler stepwise bound against $\mathrm{AV}$. These bounds are matched by constructive algorithms in the relevant domains, so the paper maps the frontier of what simultaneous guarantees are possible.

What carries the argument

The machinery has four pieces. The first is the voter-candidate interval (VCI) domain, in which every voter and candidate is an interval on the real line and approval means the two intervals intersect; it is the most general one-dimensional approval domain and the setting where the efficient algorithms hold. The second is candidate dominance: a candidate whose supporting voter set is a proper subset of another's can be deleted without changing PAIRS or CONS, and Proposition 4.3 shows that after deleting all dominated candidates every VCI instance becomes a candidate-interval (CI) instance with a computable candidate order. The third is the submodularity fact stated as Proposition 3.1: for any submodular score, some subcommittee of size $\ell$ inside a size-$k$ committee retains at least an $\ell/k$ fraction of the score, which is what makes seat-splitting optimal for PAIRS, AV, and CC. The fourth is a chain-decomposition argument for CONS on interval profiles: an optimal CONS committee partitions into overlapping chains, and splitting each chain or paired odd chains near its middle preserves a quarter of the connected pairs, yielding the $1/4$-CONS guarantee.

What would settle it

Take a small VCI election, delete dominated candidates as in Proposition 4.3, and verify that the computed candidate order makes every voter's approval set contiguous; a single voter whose approvals are non-contiguous would show the VCI-to-CI reduction is not generally valid. Alternatively, brute-force all committees of a small random approval profile and look for a committee whose PAIRS and AV approximation ratios sum to more than 1, which would contradict Proposition 5.2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a pair of tractability and trade-off results. Polarization is captured by connectivity scores rather than by winner-set properties: $\mathrm{PAIRS}(\cdot)$ is the Chamberlin–Courant score of the induced pair instance, and $\mathrm{CONS}(\cdot)$ counts pairs in the same connected component of the hypergraph induced by the committee. After deleting dominated candidates, every VCI election is actually a candidate-interval (CI) election, so the PAIRS maximizer can be inherited from known CC algorithms and CONS admits an $O(mnk)$-cell dynamic program tracking the component size of the rightmost selected candidate. In combination, no rule can beat the sum bound $\alpha+\beta\le 1$ for $\alpha$-PAIRS with $\beta$-AV, $\beta$-CC, or $\beta$-EJR, and no rule can beat $\alpha^2+\beta\le 1$ for $\alpha^2$-CONS with any of those objectives. For CONS and AV, the actual frontier is even steeper at some parameters, given by a stepwise function; on voter-interval profiles, however, a quarter of the optimal CONS can always be combined with half of AV, CC, EJR, or PAIRS.

Load-bearing premise

The polynomial-time results rest on the assumption that the election lies in the voter-candidate interval domain, meaning every voter and candidate can be placed as an interval on a line and approval means the intervals intersect, because outside such a one-dimensional representation both objectives are NP-hard and the efficient algorithms do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On one-dimensional left-right electorates, a polarization-minimizing committee can be computed in polynomial time, making the two objectives practically usable for such profiles.
  • No voting rule can simultaneously guarantee more than an $\alpha$-fraction of PAIRS and a $(1-\alpha)$-fraction of AV, CC, or EJR in the worst case, so the simple seat-splitting construction is essentially optimal.
  • For CONS, combining objectives is harder: guaranteeing $\beta$-AV, $\beta$-CC, $\beta$-EJR, or $\beta$-PAIRS leaves at most a $(1-\beta)^2$-fraction of CONS, reflecting the non-submodularity of connectivity.
  • On voter-interval profiles with even committee size, a single committee can achieve $1/4$-CONS together with $1/2$-AV, $1/2$-CC, $1/2$-EJR, or $1/2$-PAIRS.
  • The scaled method of equal shares, $\alpha$-MES, provides $\alpha$-EJR in polynomial time, a standalone proportionality guarantee that is used in the positive results.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the dominance reduction suggests a transfer principle: any preference domain where dominated candidates can be recognized and removed, and where the remaining approvals are contiguous in an order, inherits the polynomial algorithms; checking whether planar or 2D-Euclidean approval sets have an analogous reduction is a natural next test.
  • Editorial inference: the trade-off theorems are worst-case bounds; on realistic electorates with correlated approval sets the simultaneous frontier may be much better, and this is directly testable by brute-force enumeration on small empirical profiles.
  • Editorial inference: a path-length-weighted version of CONS would distinguish tight community ties from long chains of intermediaries; the paper itself notes that refined versions are needed when a universally approved candidate trivializes both scores.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two new objectives, PAIRS and CONS, for approval-based multiwinner committee selection, intended to quantify how well a committee interlaces the electorate and thereby reduce polarization. PAIRS counts voter pairs that share an approved committee member; CONS counts voter pairs connected by chains of such shared approvals. The authors prove that maximizing either objective is NP-complete in general (Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, by reductions from X3C), but that both can be maximized in polynomial time on the voter-candidate interval (VCI) domain. The VCI tractability rests on Proposition 4.3, which shows that a VCI profile without dominated candidates is in the candidate-interval domain, and on a dynamic program in Appendix B for CONS. The paper then studies compatibility with excellence (AV), diversity (CC), and proportionality (EJR). Its main trade-off results are: any rule satisfying α-PAIRS together with β-AV, β-CC, or β-EJR must have α+β≤1 (Propositions 5.2, 5.3, 5.6); any rule satisfying α²-CONS together with β-AV, β-CC, β-PAIRS, or β-EJR must have α+β≤1 (Propositions 5.7 and 5.8). A stepwise sharper bound is given for CONS versus AV (Proposition 5.9), and a positive result shows that in the VI domain with even k a committee can simultaneously guarantee 1/4-CONS and 1/2 of AV, CC, EJR, or PAIRS (Proposition 5.10).

Significance. If the proofs are correct, this is a solid and useful contribution to computational social choice. The two objectives are simple, interpretable, and directly motivated by a socially important concern, and the paper carefully delineates where they can be optimized efficiently and where they cannot. The VCI algorithms are nontrivial, especially the CONS dynamic program, which is specified in enough detail to be checked and reused. The trade-off results are tight in the worst case and the constructions are clean and convincing. A particular strength is that the load-bearing lemmas borrowed from prior work are re-proven in the appendix, and the hardness results are anchored to the standard X3C problem with no fitted parameters or circular dependencies. The VCI restriction is explicitly identified, and the paper is honest about the open problem of exact CONS trade-offs. Overall, the central claims appear sound and the presentation is generally careful, with only local issues that should be repaired before publication.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.1, Proposition 4.3] The proof says 'we can then assume without loss of generality that xv < xi', but the reflection argument for the case xv > xi is not given. The proposition is true, and a short symmetric argument (showing ci is dominated by ch rather than cj) closes the gap, but the current text should be amended to include it.
  2. [Appendix C, Lemma 5.4] The lemma states that α-MES 'returns a committee of size ⌊αk⌋', but the proof only establishes that it terminates after at most ⌊αk⌋ rounds and may return a smaller committee if no further candidate is affordable. Since EJR is monotone under adding candidates, the later use in Proposition 5.5 remains valid after topping up the committee, but the lemma statement should be corrected to 'at most ⌊αk⌋' or the topping-up step should be made explicit.
  3. [§5.2, Proposition 5.9] There is a typo in the proof: 'select all y x^2−y chain voters' should read 'chain candidates'. In addition, the claim that 'it takes 2(x^2−1) chain candidates to connect two arm voters from different arms' appears to be off by two (the correct number is 2x^2), although the subsequent inequality remains valid because the proof only needs an upper bound below 2x^2.
  4. [Appendix B, Theorem 4.5] The dynamic program is defined for committees of size at most b, and the final output committee may have size strictly smaller than k. Since CONS is monotone, the committee can be topped up to size k without decreasing the score; the text should state this explicitly when claiming that a feasible committee is output.
  5. [§3.3, Example 3.2] The committee W' is written as {c1,c3,c4,c6,d1,d6}, but the profile only contains diagonal candidates d1 and d2. The intended committee is {c1,c3,c4,c6,d1,d2}, which indeed gives each voter exactly two approvals and six covered pairs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all load-bearing derivations are proven in the paper or rely on external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained. The NP-hardness reductions (Theorems 4.1 and 4.2) reduce from the external problem X3C and do not assume the target result. The VCI-to-CI reduction (Proposition 4.3) is fully proved in the paper; although the text notes the observation is 'implicit in the work of Elkind et al. (2024, Lemma 4.7)', the proof given here is independent and does not depend on that citation. The polynomial-time algorithm for CONS (Theorem 4.5) is specified as an explicit dynamic program in Appendix B, with a correctness proof by induction. The algorithm for PAIRS (Proposition 4.4) invokes external, parameter-free algorithms for Chamberlin–Courant maximization in the CI domain (Betzler et al. 2013; Elkind and Lackner 2015), which are independent support. The trade-off results (Propositions 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9) are proved by explicit construction of families of elections and direct worst-case ratio calculations; they are not fitted to data and do not rename inputs as outputs. Lemma 5.4 on α-MES is proved in Appendix C; the citation to Peters and Skowron (2020) is for the standard MES method and the proof is adapted in full, while the citation to Dong and Peters (2025) is only a footnote comparison and is not load-bearing. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then presented as a prediction. Thus there is no circular step under the criteria in scope.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is purely theoretical and does not fit parameters to data. Its results rest on standard complexity assumptions, the structural VCI/CI/VI domain assumptions, and cited black-box algorithms for CC in CI domains (Betzler et al. 2013), all of which are either standard or proven in the appendix.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The profile is representable in the voter-candidate interval (VCI) domain, with voters and candidates as intervals and approval iff their intervals intersect.
    Used for the polynomial-time algorithms in Section 4.2 (Proposition 4.4 and Theorem 4.5); the paper also assumes a computable CI ordering after deleting dominated candidates.
  • standard math NP-completeness of Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C).
    Basis of the NP-hardness reductions in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2.
  • domain assumption In the candidate-interval domain, approval sets are contiguous intervals, so a voter approving candidates h and i with h less than j less than i must also approve j.
    This interval property drives the update formulas in the CONS dynamic program (Appendix B) and the chain splits in Proposition 5.10.
  • standard math Standard properties of the method of equal shares and the EJR axiom.
    Lemma 5.4 adapts the MES analysis of Peters and Skowron (2020); the paper provides a proof in Appendix C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Selecting Interlacing Committees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WQCFF5Z

@misc{pith2026250902519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Selecting Interlacing Committees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WQCFF5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02519}
}
read the original abstract

Polarization is a major concern for a well-functioning society. Often, mass polarization of a society is driven by polarizing political representation, even when the latter is easily preventable. The existing computational social choice methods for the task of committee selection are not designed to address this issue. We enrich the standard approach to committee selection by defining two quantitative measures that evaluate how well a given committee interconnects the voters. Maximizing these measures aims at avoiding polarizing committees. While the corresponding maximization problems are NP-complete in general, we obtain efficient algorithms for profiles in the voter-candidate interval domain. Moreover, we analyze the compatibility of our goals with other representation objectives, such as excellence, diversity, and proportionality. We identify trade-offs between approximation guarantees, and describe algorithms that achieve simultaneous constant-factor approximations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A preference profile with four voters v1,..., v4 is depicted as hypergraph, where the voters are nodes and the candidates bi ,c j are hyperedges connecting the voters approving them. In this profile, typical multiwinner voting rules do not distinguish between selecting {c1,c2,c3,c4} and {c1,c2,b1,b2}. Moreover, their results suggest mass polarization based on geography (i.e., different ideologies across US states) o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of Example 3.2. When the target committee size is 6, every size-6 subset of candidates maxi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the profile constructed in the proof of Proposition 5.2. The block voters are on the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of the profile constructed in the proof of Proposition 5.3. Block voters are on the left, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the profile constructed in the proofs of Proposition 5.6. Block voters are on the left, central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An illustration of the profile constructed in the proof of Proposition 5.7. Block voters are on the left, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An illustration of the profile constructed in the proof of Proposition 5.8. By reducing the number of blocks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An illustration of the profile constructed in the proof of Proposition 5.9. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two different upper bounds on the possible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abramowitz and Kyle L

    Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders. Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70 0 (2): 0 542--555, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Justified representation in approval-based committee voting

    Haris Aziz, Markus Brill, Vincent Conitzer, Edith Elkind, Rupert Freeman, and Toby Walsh. Justified representation in approval-based committee voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 48 0 (2): 0 461--485, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    How to choose a non-controversial list with k names

    Salvador Barber \`a and Danilo Coelho. How to choose a non-controversial list with k names. Social Choice and Welfare, 31 0 (1): 0 79--96, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    On the computation of fully proportional representation

    Nadja Betzler, Arkadii Slinko, and Johannes Uhlmann. On the computation of fully proportional representation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 47: 0 475--519, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Electoral rules, strategic entry and polarization

    Damien Bol, Konstantinos Matakos, Orestis Troumpounis, and Dimitrios Xefteris. Electoral rules, strategic entry and polarization. Journal of Public Economics, 178: 0 104065, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Robust and verifiable proportionality axioms for multiwinner voting

    Markus Brill and Jannik Peters. Robust and verifiable proportionality axioms for multiwinner voting. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (ACM-EC), 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Completing priceable committees: Utilitarian and representation guarantees for proportional multiwinner voting

    Markus Brill and Jannik Peters. Completing priceable committees: Utilitarian and representation guarantees for proportional multiwinner voting. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 9528--9536, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Chamberlin and Paul N

    John R. Chamberlin and Paul N. Courant. Representative deliberations and representative decisions: P roportional representation and the B orda rule. American Political Science Review, 77 0 (3): 0 718--733, 1983

    work page 1983

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Measuring and controlling divisiveness in rank aggregation

    Rachael Colley, Umberto Grandi, C \'e sar Hidalgo, Mariana Macedo, and Carlos Navarrete. Measuring and controlling divisiveness in rank aggregation. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 2616--2623, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Gary W. Cox. Electoral equilibrium under approval voting. American Journal of Political Science, pages 112--118, 1985

    1985

  3. [11]

    Selecting the most conflicting pair of candidates

    Th \'e o Delemazure, ukasz Janeczko, Andrzej Kaczmarczyk, and Stanis aw Szufa. Selecting the most conflicting pair of candidates. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 2766--2773, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Online approval committee elections

    Virginie Do, Matthieu Hervouin, J \'e r \^o me Lang, and Piotr Skowron. Online approval committee elections. In Proceedings of the 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 251--257, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Proportional multiwinner voting with dynamic candidate sets

    Chris Dong and Jannik Peters. Proportional multiwinner voting with dynamic candidate sets. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. Forthcoming

    2025

  6. [14]

    OWA -based extensions of the C hamberlin-- C ourant rule

    Edith Elkind and Anisse Ismaili. OWA -based extensions of the C hamberlin-- C ourant rule. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT), pages 486--502, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Structure in dichotomous preferences

    Edith Elkind and Martin Lackner. Structure in dichotomous preferences. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 2019--2025, 2015

    2019

  8. [16]

    Properties of multiwinner voting rules

    Edith Elkind, Piotr Faliszewski, Piotr Skowron, and Arkadii Slinko. Properties of multiwinner voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare, 48: 0 599--632, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    The price of justified representation

    Edith Elkind, Piotr Faliszewski, Ayumi Igarashi, Pasin Manurangsi, Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin, and Warut Suksompong. The price of justified representation. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 12 0 (3): 0 1--27, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Welfare vs

    Roy Fairstein, Dan Vilenchik, Reshef Meir, and Kobi Gal. Welfare vs. representation in participatory budgeting. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pages 409--417, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Multiwinner voting: A new challenge for social choice theory

    Piotr Faliszewski, Piotr Skowron, Arkadii Slinko, and Nimrod Talmon. Multiwinner voting: A new challenge for social choice theory. In Ulle Endriss, editor, Trends in Computational Social Choice, chapter 2. 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Morris P. Fiorina. Unstable majorities: Polarization, party sorting, and political stalemate. Hoover press, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Fiorina and Samuel J

    Morris P. Fiorina and Samuel J. Abrams. Political polarization in the A merican public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11 0 (1): 0 563--588, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Fiorina, Samuel J

    Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope. Culture war? The myth of a polarized A merica . Longman, 3rd edition, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Garey and David S

    Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, 1979

    1979

  16. [24]

    Godziszewski, Pawe Batko, Piotr Skowron, and Piotr Faliszewski

    Micha T. Godziszewski, Pawe Batko, Piotr Skowron, and Piotr Faliszewski. An analysis of approval-based committee rules for 2 D - E uclidean elections. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5448--5455, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Multigoal committee selection

    Maciej Kocot, Anna Kolonko, Edith Elkind, Piotr Faliszewski, and Nimrod Talmon. Multigoal committee selection. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 385--391, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    On the polarization premium for radical parties in PR electoral systems

    Anna-Sophie Kurella and Salvatore Barbaro. On the polarization premium for radical parties in PR electoral systems. Technical report, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universit \"a t Mainz, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Utilitarian welfare and representation guarantees of approval-based multiwinner rules

    Martin Lackner and Piotr Skowron. Utilitarian welfare and representation guarantees of approval-based multiwinner rules. Artificial Intelligence, 288: 0 103366, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferences

    Martin Lackner and Piotr Skowron. Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferences. Springer Nature, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33 0 (2): 0 283--301, 2016

    Matthew Levendusky and Neil Malhotra. Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33 0 (2): 0 283--301, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    The dynamics of political polarization

    Simon A Levin, Helen V Milner, and Charles Perrings. The dynamics of political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 0 (50): 0 e2116950118, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Burt L. Monroe. Fully proportional representation. American Political Science Review, 89 0 (4): 0 925--940, 1995

    1995

  24. [32]

    Myerson and Robert J

    Roger B. Myerson and Robert J. Weber. A theory of voting equilibria. American Political Science Review, 87 0 (1): 0 102--114, 1993

    1993

  25. [33]

    An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions— I

    George L Nemhauser, Laurence A Wolsey, and Marshall L Fisher. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions— I . Mathematical programming, 14: 0 265--294, 1978

    1978

  26. [34]

    Proportionality and the limits of welfarism

    Dominik Peters and Piotr Skowron. Proportionality and the limits of welfarism. In Proceedings of the 21nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (ACM-EC), pages 793--794, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Till fr gan om en proportionell valmetod

    Edvard Phragm \'e n. Till fr gan om en proportionell valmetod. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 2 0 (2): 0 297--305, 1899

  28. [36]

    The (computational) social choice take on indivisible participatory budgeting

    Simon Rey and Jan Maly. The (computational) social choice take on indivisible participatory budgeting. Technical report, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.00621.pdf, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Thorvald N. Thiele. Om flerfoldsvalg. Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger, pages 415--441, 1895

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.