# Verifying Proportionality in Temporal Voting

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05949 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05949/

## Key facts

- Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 9 Feb 2025.

## Built on by (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Strengthening Proportionality in Temporal Voting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22513/) (2025)
- [Online Fair Division with Additional Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.24503/) (2025)
- [Approximate Proportionality in Online Fair Division](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03253/) (2025)
- [The Price of Proportional Representation in Temporal Voting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11157/) (2026)
- [Strengthening Full Justified Representation: Efficient Verification and Computation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.11500/) (2026)
- [Temporal Panel Selection in Ongoing Citizens' Assemblies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16194/) (2026)
- [AI of the People, by the People, for the People: A Social Choice Approach to Collective Control of Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.16291/) (2026)
- [Online Fair Division with Budget Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.23310/) (2026)
- [Proportional Representation in Temporal Voting with Ranked Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.30555/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We study a model of temporal voting where there is a fixed time horizon, and at each round the voters report their preferences over the available candidates and a single candidate is selected. Prior work has adapted popular notions of justified representation as well as voting rules that provide strong representation guarantees from the multiwinner election setting to this model. In our work, we focus on the complexity of verifying whether a given outcome offers proportional representation. We show that in the temporal setting verification is strictly harder than in multiwinner voting, but identify natural special cases that enable efficient algorithms.