Axiomatic Characterization of Committee Scoring Rules
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Committee scoring rules form a rich class of aggregators of voters' preferences for the purpose of selecting subsets of objects with desired properties, e.g., a shortlist of candidates for an interview, a representative collective body such as a parliament, or a set of locations for a set of public facilities. In the spirit of celebrated Young's characterization result that axiomatizes single-winner scoring rules, we provide an axiomatic characterization of multiwinner committee scoring rules. We show that committee scoring rules---despite forming a remarkably general class of rules---are characterized by the set of four standard axioms, anonymity, neutrality, consistency and continuity, and by one axiom specific to multiwinner rules which we call committee dominance. In the course of our proof, we develop several new notions and techniques. In particular, we introduce and axiomatically characterize multiwinner decision scoring rules, a class of rules that broadly generalizes the well-known majority relation.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 6 Apr 2016.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 2.
3 papers.
- 2024LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Makingcited by 47
- 2022Indivisible Participatory Budgeting under Weak Rankingscited by 1
- 2024Selecting the Most Conflicting Pair of Candidatescited by 1
- 2024Selecting the Most Conflicting Pair of Candidates9 May 2024
- 2024LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making31 Jan 2024
- 2022Indivisible Participatory Budgeting under Weak Rankings16 Jul 2022