mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Proportional Representation in Metric Spaces and Low-Distortion Committee Selection

arXiv 2312.10369 ↗First posted 16 Dec 2023cs.GT cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce a novel definition for a small set R of k points being "representative" of a larger set in a metric space. Given a set V (e.g., documents or voters) to represent, and a set C of possible representatives, our criterion requires that for any subset S comprising a theta fraction of V, the average distance of S to their best theta*k points in R should not be more than a factor gamma compared to their average distance to the best theta*k points among all of C. This definition is a strengthening of proportional fairness and core fairness, but - different from those notions - requires that large cohesive clusters be represented proportionally to their size. Since there are instances for which - unless gamma is polynomially large - no solutions exist, we study this notion in a resource augmentation framework, implicitly stating the constraints for a set R of size k as though its size were only k/alpha, for alpha > 1. Furthermore, motivated by the application to elections, we mostly focus on the "ordinal" model, where the algorithm does not learn the actual distances; instead, it learns only for each point v in V and each candidate pairs c, c' which of c, c' is closer to v. Our main result is that the Expanding Approvals Rule (EAR) of Aziz and Lee is (alpha, gamma) representative with gamma <= 1 + 6.71 * (alpha)/(alpha-1). Our results lead to three notable byproducts. First, we show that the EAR achieves constant proportional fairness in the ordinal model, giving the first positive result on metric proportional fairness with ordinal information. Second, we show that for the core fairness objective, the EAR achieves the same asymptotic tradeoff between resource augmentation and approximation as the recent results of Li et al., which used full knowledge of the metric. Finally, our results imply a very simple single-winner voting rule with metric distortion at most 44.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Dec 2023.

Builds on

24 of 50 references.

References · 24

  1. 2019Proportionally Fair Clusteringcited by 69
  2. 2020Individual Fairness for k-Clusteringcited by 56
  3. 2014Justified Representation in Approval-Based Committee Votingcited by 42
  4. 2020Proportional Participatory Budgeting with Additive Utilitiescited by 37
  5. 2021Improved Approximation Algorithms for Individually Fair Clusteringcited by 33
  6. 2019A Center in Your Neighborhood: Fairness in Facility Locationcited by 26
  7. 2016Proportional Justified Representationcited by 25
  8. 2023Robust and Verifiable Proportionality Axioms for Multiwinner Votingcited by 23
  9. 2021A New Notion of Individually Fair Clustering: α-Equitable k-Centercited by 18
  10. 2021Distortion in Social Choice Problems: The First 15 Years and Beyondcited by 17
  11. 2023Proportional Fairness in Clustering: A Social Choice Perspectivecited by 13
  12. 2022Optimized Distortion and Proportional Fairness in Votingcited by 12
12 more
  1. 2019Group Fairness in Committee Selectioncited by 10
  2. 2020Resolving the Optimal Metric Distortion Conjecturecited by 10
  3. 2013Achieving Fully Proportional Representation: Approximability Resultscited by 7
  4. 2018Proportionality Degree of Multiwinner Rulescited by 7
  5. 2019Approximately Stable Committee Selectioncited by 7
  6. 2022The Metric Distortion of Multiwinner Votingcited by 7
  7. 2022Approximate Group Fairness for Clusteringcited by 7
  8. 2019Improved Metric Distortion for Deterministic Social Choice Rulescited by 6
  9. 2018Relating Metric Distortion and Fairness of Social Choice Rulescited by 4
  10. 2018Ordinal Approximation for Social Choice, Matching, and Facility Location Problems given Candidate Positionscited by 3
  11. 2023Best of Both Distortion Worldscited by 3
  12. 2023Distortion in metric matching with ordinal preferencescited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

3 papers.