Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin

Publications and source records attributed to Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

On the Stability of Minimum-Weight Perfect Matching on the Line

Computing a minimum-weight perfect matching for a point set $P$ in Euclidean space is a classic geometric optimization problem. We consider the problem in a dynamic setting, where pairs of points may be added to or removed from the set $P$. Our focus is on maintaining an approximately optimal solution without making too many changes to the solution. More precisely, we are interested in $k$-stable algorithms, which change at most $k$ edges in the matching after each update to the set $P$. In other words, we consider an online setting (with insertions and deletions) with bounded recourse. We study trade-offs between the stability of the algorithm and the approximation ratio of the maintained solution for point sets in $\mathbb{R}^1$. First, we present an $O(\sqrt{n})$-stable algorithm that maintains a $2$-approximation, which we show to be optimal among all algorithms with sublinear stability. Second, we prove that any $o(\log n)$-stable algorithm has unbounded approximation ratio. Our lower bounds hold even in the insertion-only case, while our algorithm works in the fully dynamic case. Moreover, our lower bounds also hold for the bipartite variant of the problem.

cs.CG↗

Cycles in Liquid Democracy: A Game-Theoretic Justification

A common criticism of liquid democracy within the relevant academic literature is that delegation cycles can occur, seemingly resulting in unused voting power. Yet, practitioners argue that delegation cycles are not only unproblematic but are even formed intentionally by participants. To bring theory closer to reality, we introduce a model that captures this strategic behavior under uncertainty. We study the existence, structure and quality of Nash equilibria, revealing that delegation cycles naturally emerge. To complement these findings, we perform computational experiments using best-response dynamics.

cs.GT↗

Computing Thiele Rules on Interval Elections and their Generalizations

Approval-based committee voting has received significant attention in the social choice community. Among the studied rules, Thiele rules, and especially Proportional Approval Voting (PAV), stand out for desirable properties such as proportional representation, Pareto optimality, and support monotonicity. Their main drawback is that computing a Thiele outcome is NP-hard in general. A glimpse of hope comes from the fact that Thiele rules are better behaved under structured preferences. On the candidate interval (CI) domain, they are computable in polynomial time via a linear program (LP) that has a totally unimodular constraint matrix. Surprisingly, this approach fails for the related voter interval (VI) domain, and the complexity of the problem has repeatedly been posed as an open question. Our main result resolves this question: although the relevant matrix is not totally unimodular, the ``standard'' LP still admits at least one optimal integral solution, and we provide a fast algorithm for finding it. Our technique naturally extends to the voter-candidate interval (VCI) domain, also known as the 1-dimensional voter-candidate range (1D-VCR) domain, and to the linearly consistent (LC) domain, both of which generalize the candidate and voter interval domains. Although both the VCI and LC domains have been studied in social choice, their relationship was unknown. We show, through connections to graph theory, that LC strictly contains VCI. We also provide an alternative definition of LC that is closer in spirit to VCI and has a natural interpretation in approval elections; this equivalence may be of independent interest. Finally, we study an alternative tree-based generalization of VCI and show that Thiele rules become NP-hard to compute on this domain.

cs.AI↗

Social Welfare in Budget Aggregation

We study budget aggregation under $\ell_1$-utilities, a model for collective decision making in which agents with heterogeneous preferences must allocate a public budget across a set of alternatives. Each agent reports their preferred allocation, and a mechanism selects an allocation. Early work focused on social welfare maximization, which in this setting admits truthful mechanisms, but may underrepresent minority groups, motivating the study of proportional mechanisms. However, the dominant proportionality notion, single-minded proportionality, is weak, as it only constrains outcomes when agents hold extreme preferences. To better understand proportionality and its interaction with welfare and truthfulness, we address three questions. First, how much welfare must be sacrificed to achieve proportionality? We formalize this via the price of proportionality, the best worst-case welfare ratio between a proportional mechanism and Util, the welfare-maximizing mechanism. We introduce a new single-minded proportional and truthful mechanism, UtilProp, and show that it achieves the optimal worst-case ratio. Second, how do proportional mechanisms compare in terms of welfare? We define an instance-wise welfare dominance relation and use it to compare mechanisms from the literature. In particular, we show that UtilProp welfare-dominates all previously known single-minded proportional and truthful mechanisms. Third, can stronger notions of proportionality be achieved without compromising welfare guarantees? We answer this question in the affirmative by studying decomposability and proposing GreedyDecomp, a decomposable mechanism with optimal worst-case welfare ratio. We further show that computing the welfare-dominant decomposable mechanism, UtilDecomp, is NP-hard, and that GreedyDecomp provides a 2-approximation to UtilDecomp in terms of welfare.

cs.GT↗

Condorcet Dimension and Pareto Optimality for Matchings and Beyond

We study matching problems in which agents form one side of a bipartite graph and have preferences over objects on the other side. A central solution concept in this setting is popularity: a matching is popular if it is a (weak) Condorcet winner, meaning that no other matching is preferred by a strict majority of agents. It is well known, however, that Condorcet winners need not exist. We therefore turn to a natural and prominent relaxation. A set of matchings is a Condorcet-winning set if, for every competing matching, a majority of agents prefers their favorite matching in the set over the competitor. The Condorcet dimension is the smallest cardinality of a Condorcet-winning set. Our main results reveal a connection between Condorcet-winning sets and Pareto optimality. We show that any Pareto-optimal set of two matchings is, in particular, a Condorcet-winning set. This implication continues to hold when we impose matroid constraints on the set of matched objects, and even when agents' valuations are given as partial orders. The existence picture, however, changes sharply with partial orders. While for weak orders a Pareto-optimal set of two matchings always exists, this is -- surprisingly -- not the case under partial orders. Consequently, although the Condorcet dimension for matchings is 2 under weak orders (even under matroid constraints), this guarantee fails for partial orders: we prove that the Condorcet dimension is $Θ(\sqrt{n})$, and rises further to $Θ(n)$ when matroid constraints are added. On the computational side, we show that, under partial orders, deciding whether there exists a Condorcet -- winning set of a given fixed size is NP-hard. The same holds for deciding the existence of a Pareto-optimal matching, which we believe to be of independent interest. Finally, we also show that the Condorcet dimension for a related problem on arborescences is also 2.

cs.GT↗

On Multi-Level Apportionment

Apportionment refers to the well-studied problem of allocating legislative seats among parties or groups with different entitlements. We present a multi-level generalization of apportionment where the groups form a hierarchical structure, which gives rise to stronger versions of the upper and lower quota notions. We show that running Adams' method level-by-level satisfies upper quota, while running Jefferson's method or the quota method level-by-level guarantees lower quota. Moreover, we prove that both quota notions can always be fulfilled simultaneously.

econ.TH↗

City Sampling for Citizens' Assemblies

In citizens' assemblies, a group of constituents is randomly selected to weigh in on policy issues. We study a two-stage sampling problem faced by practitioners in countries such as Germany, in which constituents' contact information is stored at a municipal level. As a result, practitioners can only select constituents from a bounded number of cities ex post, while ensuring equal selection probability for constituents ex ante. We develop several algorithms for this problem. Although minimizing the number of contacted cities is NP-hard, we provide a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm and an additive 1-approximation, both based on separation oracles for a linear programming formulation. Recognizing that practical objectives go beyond minimizing city count, we further introduce a simple and more interpretable greedy algorithm, which additionally satisfies an ex-post monotonicity property and achieves an additive 2-approximation. Finally, we explore a notion of ex-post proportionality, for which we propose two practical algorithms: an optimal algorithm based on column generation and integer linear programming and a simple heuristic creating particularly transparent distributions. We evaluate these algorithms on data from Germany, and plan to deploy them in cooperation with a leading nonprofit organization in this space.

cs.GT↗

Robust Committee Voting, or The Other Side of Representation

We study approval-based committee voting from a novel perspective. While extant work largely centers around proportional representation of the voters, we shift our focus to the candidates while preserving proportionality. Intuitively, candidates supported by similar voter groups should receive comparable representation. Since deterministic voting rules cannot achieve this ideal, we develop randomized voting rules that satisfy ex-ante neutrality, monotonicity, and continuity, while maintaining strong ex-post proportionality guarantees. Continuity of the candidate selection probabilities proves to be the most demanding of our ex-ante desiderata. We provide it via voting rules that are algorithmically stable, a stronger notion of robustness which captures the continuity of the committee distribution under small changes. First, we introduce Softmax-GJCR, a randomized variant of the Greedy Justified Candidate Rule (GJCR) [Brill and Peters, 2023], which carefully leverages slack in GJCR to satisfy our ex-ante properties. This polynomial-time algorithm satisfies EJR+ ex post, assures ex-ante monotonicity and neutrality, and provides $O(k^3/n)$-stability (ignoring $\log$ factors). Building on our techniques for Softmax-GJCR, we further show that stronger stability guarantees can be attained by (i) allowing exponential running time, (ii) relaxing EJR+ to an approximate $α$-EJR+, and (iii) relaxing EJR+ to JR. We finally demonstrate the utility of stable voting rules in other settings. In online dynamic committee voting, we show that stable voting rules imply dynamic voting rules with low expected recourse, and illustrate this reduction for Softmax-GJCR. Our voting rules also satisfy a stronger form of stability that coincides with differential privacy, suggesting their applicability in privacy-sensitive domains.

cs.GT↗

Discrete Budget Aggregation: Truthfulness and Proportionality

We study a budget aggregation setting where voters express their preferred allocation of a fixed budget over a set of alternatives, and a mechanism aggregates these preferences into a single output allocation. Motivated by scenarios in which the budget is not perfectly divisible, we depart from the prevailing literature by restricting the mechanism to output allocations that assign integral amounts. This seemingly minor deviation has significant implications for the existence of truthful mechanisms. Specifically, when voters can propose fractional allocations, we demonstrate that the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem can be extended to our setting. In contrast, when voters are restricted to integral ballots, we identify a class of truthful mechanisms by adapting moving-phantom mechanisms to our context. Moreover, we show that while a weak form of proportionality can be achieved alongside truthfulness, (stronger) proportionality notions derived from approval-based committee voting are incompatible with truthfulness.

cs.GT↗

New Combinatorial Insights for Monotone Apportionment

The apportionment problem constitutes a fundamental problem in democratic societies: How to distribute a fixed number of seats among a set of states in proportion to the states' populations? This--seemingly simple--task has led to a rich literature and has become well known in the context of the US House of Representatives. In this paper, we connect the design of monotone apportionment methods to classic problems from discrete geometry and combinatorial optimization and explore the extent to which randomization can enhance proportionality. We first focus on the well-studied family of stationary divisor methods, which satisfy the strong population monotonicity property, and show that this family produces only a slightly superlinear number of different outputs as a function of the number of states. While our upper and lower bounds leave a small gap, we show that--surprisingly--closing this gap would solve a long-standing open problem from discrete geometry, known as the complexity of $k$-levels in line arrangements. The main downside of divisor methods is their violation of the quota axiom, i.e., every state should receive $\lfloor q_i\rfloor$ or $\lceil q_i\rceil$ seats, where $q_i$ is the proportional share of the state. As we show that randomizing over divisor methods can only partially overcome this issue, we propose a relaxed version of divisor methods in which the total number of seats may slightly deviate from the house size. By randomizing over them, we can simultaneously satisfy population monotonicity, quota, and ex-ante proportionality. Finally, we turn our attention to quota-compliant methods that are house-monotone, i.e., no state may lose a seat when the house size is increased. We provide a polyhedral characterization based on network flows, which implies a simple description of all ex-ante proportional randomized methods that are house-monotone and quota-compliant.

cs.GT↗

Truthful Budget Aggregation: Beyond Moving-Phantom Mechanisms

We study a budget-aggregation setting in which a number of voters report their ideal distribution of a budget over a set of alternatives, and a mechanism aggregates these reports into an allocation. Ideally, such mechanisms are truthful, i.e., voters should not be incentivized to misreport their preferences. For the case of two alternatives, the set of mechanisms that are truthful and additionally meet a range of basic desiderata (anonymity, neutrality, and continuity) exactly coincides with the so-called moving-phantom mechanisms, but whether this space is richer for more alternatives was repeatedly stated as an open question. We answer this question in the affirmative by presenting a class of truthful mechanisms that are not moving-phantoms but satisfy the three properties. Since moving-phantom mechanisms can only provide limited fairness guarantees (measured as the worst-case distance to a fair share solution), one motivation for broadening the class of truthful mechanisms is the hope for improved fairness guarantees. We dispel this hope by showing that lower bounds holding for the class of moving-phantom mechanisms extend to all truthful, anonymous, neutral, and continuous mechanisms.

cs.GT↗

Monotone Randomized Apportionment

Apportionment is the act of distributing the seats of a legislature among political parties (or states) in proportion to their vote shares (or populations). A famous impossibility by Balinski and Young (2001) shows that no apportionment method can be proportional up to one seat (quota) while also responding monotonically to changes in the votes (population monotonicity). Grimmett (2004) proposed to overcome this impossibility by randomizing the apportionment, which can achieve quota as well as perfect proportionality and monotonicity -- at least in terms of the expected number of seats awarded to each party. Still, the correlations between the seats awarded to different parties may exhibit bizarre non-monotonicities. When parties or voters care about joint events, such as whether a coalition of parties reaches a majority, these non-monotonicities can cause paradoxes, including incentives for strategic voting. In this paper, we propose monotonicity axioms ruling out these paradoxes, and study which of them can be satisfied jointly with Grimmett's axioms. Essentially, we require that, if a set of parties all receive more votes, the probability of those parties jointly receiving more seats should increase. Our work draws on a rich literature on unequal probability sampling in statistics (studied as dependent randomized rounding in computer science). Our main result shows that a sampling scheme due to Sampford (1967) satisfies Grimmett's axioms and a notion of higher-order correlation monotonicity.

cs.GT↗

Project-Fair and Truthful Mechanisms for Budget Aggregation

We study the budget aggregation problem in which a set of strategic voters must split a finite divisible resource (such as money or time) among a set of competing projects. Our goal is twofold: We seek truthful mechanisms that provide fairness guarantees to the projects. For the first objective, we focus on the class of moving phantom mechanisms [Freeman et al., 2021], which are -- to this day -- essentially the only known truthful mechanisms in this setting. For project fairness, we consider the mean division as a fair baseline, and bound the maximum difference between the funding received by any project and this baseline. We propose a novel and simple moving phantom mechanism that provides optimal project fairness guarantees. As a corollary of our results, we show that our new mechanism minimizes the $\ell_1$ distance to the mean (a measure suggested by Caragiannis et al. [2022]) for three projects and gives the first non-trivial bounds on this quantity for more than three projects.

cs.GT↗

Anonymous and Copy-Robust Delegations for Liquid Democracy

Liquid democracy with ranked delegations is a novel voting scheme that unites the practicability of representative democracy with the idealistic appeal of direct democracy: Every voter decides between casting their vote on a question at hand or delegating their voting weight to some other, trusted agent. Delegations are transitive, and since voters may end up in a delegation cycle, they are encouraged to indicate not only a single delegate, but a set of potential delegates and a ranking among them. Based on the delegation preferences of all voters, a delegation rule selects one representative per voter. Previous work has revealed a trade-off between two properties of delegation rules called anonymity and copy-robustness. To overcome this issue we study two fractional delegation rules: Mixed Borda branching, which generalizes a rule satisfying copy-robustness, and the random walk rule, which satisfies anonymity. Using the Markov chain tree theorem, we show that the two rules are in fact equivalent, and simultaneously satisfy generalized versions of the two properties. Combining the same theorem with Fulkerson's algorithm, we develop a polynomial-time algorithm for computing the outcome of the studied delegation rule. This algorithm is of independent interest, having applications in semi-supervised learning and graph theory.

cs.GT↗

Approval-Based Committee Voting in Practice: A Case Study of (Over-)Representation in the Polkadot Blockchain

We provide the first large-scale data collection of real-world approval-based committee elections. These elections have been conducted on the Polkadot blockchain as part of their Nominated Proof-of-Stake mechanism and contain around one thousand candidates and tens of thousands of (weighted) voters each. We conduct an in-depth study of application-relevant questions, including a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the outcomes returned by different voting rules. Besides considering proportionality measures that are standard in the multiwinner voting literature, we pay particular attention to less-studied measures of overrepresentation, as these are closely related to the security of the Polkadot network. We also analyze how different design decisions such as the committee size affect the examined measures.

cs.GT↗

The popular assignment problem: when cardinality is more important than popularity

We consider a matching problem in a bipartite graph $G=(A\cup B,E)$ where nodes in $A$ are agents having preferences in partial order over their neighbors, while nodes in $B$ are objects without preferences. We propose a polynomial-time combinatorial algorithm based on LP duality that finds a maximum matching or assignment in $G$ that is popular among all maximum matchings, if there exists one. Our algorithm can also be used to achieve a trade-off between popularity and cardinality by imposing a penalty on unmatched nodes in $A$. We also provide an $O^*(|E|^k)$ algorithm that finds an assignment whose unpopularity margin is at most $k$; this algorithm is essentially optimal, since the problem is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and $\mathsf{W}_l[1]$-hard with parameter $k$. We also prove that finding a popular assignment of minimum cost when each edge has an associated binary cost is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard, even if agents have strict preferences. By contrast, we propose a polynomial-time algorithm for the variant of the popular assignment problem with forced/forbidden edges. Finally, we present an application in the context of housing markets.

cs.DS↗

On price-induced minmax matchings

We study a natural combinatorial pricing problem for sequentially arriving buyers with equal budgets. Each buyer is interested in exactly one pair of items and purchases this pair if and only if, upon arrival, both items are still available and the sum of the item prices does not exceed the budget. The goal of the seller is to set prices to the items such that the number of transactions is maximized when buyers arrive in adversarial order. Formally, we are given an undirected graph where vertices represent items and edges represent buyers. Once prices are set to the vertices, edges with a total price exceeding the buyers' budgets are evicted. Any arrival order of the buyers leads to a set of transactions that forms a maximal matching in this subgraph, and an adversarial arrival order results in a minimum maximal matching. In order to measure the performance of a pricing strategy, we compare the size of such a matching to the size of a maximum matching in the original graph. It was shown by Correa et al. [IPCO 2022] that the best ratio any pricing strategy can guarantee lies within $[1/2, 2/3]$. Our contribution to the problem is two-fold: First, we provide several characterizations of subgraphs that may result from pricing schemes. Second, building upon these, we show an improved upper bound of $3/5$ and a lower bound of $1/2 + 2/n$, where $n$ is the number of items.

cs.GT↗

Weighted Envy-Freeness for Submodular Valuations

We investigate the fair allocation of indivisible goods to agents with possibly different entitlements represented by weights. Previous work has shown that guarantees for additive valuations with existing envy-based notions cannot be extended to the case where agents have matroid-rank (i.e., binary submodular) valuations. We propose two families of envy-based notions for matroid-rank and general submodular valuations, one based on the idea of transferability and the other on marginal values. We show that our notions can be satisfied via generalizations of rules such as picking sequences and maximum weighted Nash welfare. In addition, we introduce welfare measures based on harmonic numbers, and show that variants of maximum weighted harmonic welfare offer stronger fairness guarantees than maximum weighted Nash welfare under matroid-rank valuations.

cs.GT↗