mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

DiRe Committee : Diversity and Representation Constraints in Multiwinner Elections

arXiv 2107.07356 ↗First posted 15 Jul 2021cs.GT cs.AI cs.CYcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The study of fairness in multiwinner elections focuses on settings where candidates have attributes. However, voters may also be divided into predefined populations under one or more attributes (e.g., "California" and "Illinois" populations under the "state" attribute), which may be same or different from candidate attributes. The models that focus on candidate attributes alone may systematically under-represent smaller voter populations. Hence, we develop a model, DiRe Committee WinnerDetermination (DRCWD), which delineates candidate and voter attributes to select a committee by specifying diversity and representation constraints and a voting rule. We analyze its computational complexity, inapproximability, and parameterized complexity. We develop a heuristic-based algorithm, which finds the winning DiRe committee in under two minutes on 63% of the instances of synthetic datasets and on 100% of instances of real-world datasets. We present an empirical analysis of the running time, feasibility, and utility traded-off. Overall, DRCWD motivates that a study of multiwinner elections should consider both its actors, namely candidates and voters, as candidate-specific models can unknowingly harm voter populations, and vice versa. Additionally, even when the attributes of candidates and voters coincide, it is important to treat them separately as diversity does not imply representation and vice versa. This is to say that having a female candidate on the committee, for example, is different from having a candidate on the committee who is preferred by the female voters, and who themselves may or may not be female.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 83 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2021.

Builds on

24 of 83 references.

References · 24

  1. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
  2. 2016Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputscited by 81
  3. 2017Ranking with Fairness Constraintscited by 78
  4. 2020FairRec: Two-Sided Fairness for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platformscited by 77
  5. 2017Multisided Fairness for Recommendationcited by 69
  6. 2014Justified Representation in Approval-Based Committee Votingcited by 42
  7. 2016Proportional Justified Representationcited by 25
  8. 2015Properties of Multiwinner Voting Rulescited by 20
  9. 2019Balanced Ranking with Diversity Constraintscited by 20
  10. 2019Multi-stakeholder Recommendation and its Connection to Multi-sided Fairnesscited by 19
  11. 2014On the Computation of Fully Proportional Representationcited by 14
  12. 2017Multiwinner Elections with Diversity Constraintscited by 10
12 more
  1. 2017Fair Knapsackcited by 8
  2. 2013Achieving Fully Proportional Representation: Approximability Resultscited by 7
  3. 2015Structure in Dichotomous Preferencescited by 7
  4. 2017Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rulescited by 6
  5. 2016Multiwinner Approval Rules as Apportionment Methodscited by 5
  6. 2015Multi-Attribute Proportional Representationcited by 4
  7. 2021District-Fair Participatory Budgetingcited by 4
  8. 2021Dynamic Proportional Rankingscited by 4
  9. 2021Parameterized Complexity of Multi-winner Determination: More Effort Towards Fixed-Parameter Tractabilitycited by 4
  10. 2020Group Fairness for Knapsack Problemscited by 3
  11. 2020On the complexity of Winner Verification and Candidate Winner for Multiwinner Voting Rulescited by 2
  12. 2020Algorithmic Techniques for Necessary and Possible Winnerscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 1.

3 papers.