對多勝選舉公平性的研究主要集中在候選人具有屬性的情況下。但是，選民也可以根據一個或多個屬性分為預定義的人群(例如，“加州”和“伊利諾伊州”人群在“州”屬性下)，這些人群可能與候選人的屬性相同或不同。僅關注候選人屬性的模型可能在系統上未能充分代表較小的選民群體。是以，我們開發了一個模型，即候選委員會赢家決定(DRCWD)，該模型通過指定多樣性、代表性限制和投票規則來描述候選人和選民的屬性來選擇委員會。我們展示了我們的模型的泛化性，并分析了它的計算複雜度、不可近似性和參數化複雜度。我們開發了一種基于啟發式的算法，該算法可以在兩分鐘内在63%的合成資料集執行個體和100%的真實資料集執行個體上找到獲勝的DiRe委員會。我們提出了運作時間、可行性和效用權衡的實證分析。
總的來說，DRCWD促使多勝選舉的研究應該同時考慮其參與者，即候選人和選民，因為候選人特定的“公平”模型可能在不知不覺中傷害選民群體，反之亦然。此外,即使候選人和選民的屬性一緻,重要的是對待他們分别該委員會的女候選人,例如,不同于在該委員會候選人誰是首選的女性選民,誰自己可能是也可能不是女性。
原文題目：DiRe Committee : Diversity and Representation Constraints in Multiwinner Elections Kunal Relia
原文：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 Winner Determination (DRCWD), which delineates candidate and voter attributes to select a committee by specifying diversity and representation constraints and a voting rule. We show the generalizability of our model, and 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 "fair" 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 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.
2107.07356.pdf