Skip to main content

17.04.2024

How to choose a compatible committee?

verfasst von: Ritu Dutta, Rajnish Kumar, Surajit Borkotokey

Erschienen in: Public Choice

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Electing a committee of size k from m candidates (\(k < m\)) is an interesting problem under multi-winner voting situations. In this paper, we propose a new committee selection rule based on cooperative game theoretic tools, where voters can approve both individuals and groups of candidates simultaneously. This flexibility of approving groups of candidates allows the voters to assess the candidates’ compatibility to work in a group. In many situations, the k-elected candidates have no particular status as a group and voters in such multi-winner elections are presumably concerned about the personal qualities of the candidates. However, many committees function in unison and therefore, their productivity also depends on the compatibility of the members to accomplish a task together. We assume that the voters have prior beliefs about this compatibility. The profile of summed approval votes constitutes the characteristic function of a cooperative game. The Shapley value of this game is calculated to measure the candidates’ expected marginal contributions in accomplishing the group task as perceived by the voters. The top k-ranked candidates prescribed by the Shapley value are selected to form the desired committee. The Shapley value as a committee selection rule is characterized by a set of intuitive axioms. We explore several properties of the committee selection rule.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
For instance, this can be seen in the selection process of national soccer teams. If players are individually rated, the strikers tend to receive the highest ratings. Consequently, if the team is formed solely based on these individual ratings, it would primarily consist of strikers. This means that crucial positions such as the goalkeeper or the defenders may not be represented at all or have players with lower ratings. However, this approach is not ideal for creating a well-balanced soccer team.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Aragones, E., Gilboa, I., & Weiss, A. (2011). Making statements and approval voting. Theory and Decision, 71(4), 461–472.CrossRef Aragones, E., Gilboa, I., & Weiss, A. (2011). Making statements and approval voting. Theory and Decision, 71(4), 461–472.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Aziz, H., Brill, M., Conitzer, E., Elkind, E., Freeman, R., & Walsh, T. (2016). Justified representation in approval-based committee voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 48, 461–485.CrossRef Aziz, H., Brill, M., Conitzer, E., Elkind, E., Freeman, R., & Walsh, T. (2016). Justified representation in approval-based committee voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 48, 461–485.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Barbera, S., & Coelho, D. (2008). How to choose a non-controversial list of \(k\) names. Social Choice and Welfare, 31, 79–96.CrossRef Barbera, S., & Coelho, D. (2008). How to choose a non-controversial list of \(k\) names. Social Choice and Welfare, 31, 79–96.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bernardi, G., Lucchetti, R., & Moretti, S. (2019). Ranking objects from a preference relation over their subsets. Social Choice and Welfare, 52, 589–606.CrossRef Bernardi, G., Lucchetti, R., & Moretti, S. (2019). Ranking objects from a preference relation over their subsets. Social Choice and Welfare, 52, 589–606.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. C. (1978). Approval Voting. The American Political Science Review, 72(3), 831–847.CrossRef Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. C. (1978). Approval Voting. The American Political Science Review, 72(3), 831–847.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brams, S. J., & Herschbach, D. R. (2001). The science of elections. Science, 292(5521), 1449.CrossRef Brams, S. J., & Herschbach, D. R. (2001). The science of elections. Science, 292(5521), 1449.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Casajus, A. (2014). The Shapley value without efficiency and additivity. Mathematical Social Sciences, 68, 1–4.CrossRef Casajus, A. (2014). The Shapley value without efficiency and additivity. Mathematical Social Sciences, 68, 1–4.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Darmann, A. (2013). How hard is it to tell which is a Condorcet committee? Mathematical Social Sciences, 66(3), 282–292.CrossRef Darmann, A. (2013). How hard is it to tell which is a Condorcet committee? Mathematical Social Sciences, 66(3), 282–292.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dutta, R., Roy, S., & Borkotokey, S. (2023). The Generalized Shapley Value of Cooperative Games as a Social Preference Function. Group Decision and Negotiation, 32(2), 277–300. Dutta, R., Roy, S., & Borkotokey, S. (2023). The Generalized Shapley Value of Cooperative Games as a Social Preference Function. Group Decision and Negotiation, 32(2), 277–300.
Zurück zum Zitat Dehez, P., & Ginsburgh, V. (2020). Approval voting and Shapley ranking. Public Choice, 184, 415–428.CrossRef Dehez, P., & Ginsburgh, V. (2020). Approval voting and Shapley ranking. Public Choice, 184, 415–428.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Diss, M., & Doghmi, A. (2016). Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes. Public Choice, 169, 97–116.CrossRef Diss, M., & Doghmi, A. (2016). Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes. Public Choice, 169, 97–116.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the\(10^{th}\)International World Wide Web Conference (pp. 613-622) Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the\(10^{th}\)International World Wide Web Conference (pp. 613-622)
Zurück zum Zitat Einy, E., & Haimanko, O. (2011). Characterization of the Shapley-Shubik power index without the efficiency axiom. Games and Economic Behavior, 73, 615–621.CrossRef Einy, E., & Haimanko, O. (2011). Characterization of the Shapley-Shubik power index without the efficiency axiom. Games and Economic Behavior, 73, 615–621.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Elkind, E., Faliszewski, P., Skowron, P., & Slinko, A. (2017). Properties of multi-winner voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare, 48(3), 599–632.CrossRef Elkind, E., Faliszewski, P., Skowron, P., & Slinko, A. (2017). Properties of multi-winner voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare, 48(3), 599–632.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Faliszewski, P., Skowron, P., Slinko, A., & Talmon, N. (2018). Multi-winner analogues of the plurality rule: Axiomatic and algorithmic perspectives. Social Choice and Welfare, 51(3), 513–550.CrossRef Faliszewski, P., Skowron, P., Slinko, A., & Talmon, N. (2018). Multi-winner analogues of the plurality rule: Axiomatic and algorithmic perspectives. Social Choice and Welfare, 51(3), 513–550.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Goel, A., Krishnaswamy, A. K., Sakshuwong, S., & Aitamurto, T. (2015). Knapsack voting. Collective Intelligence, 1. Goel, A., Krishnaswamy, A. K., Sakshuwong, S., & Aitamurto, T. (2015). Knapsack voting. Collective Intelligence, 1.
Zurück zum Zitat Ianovski, E. (2022). Electing a committee with dominance constraints. Annals of Operation Research, 318, 985–1000.CrossRef Ianovski, E. (2022). Electing a committee with dominance constraints. Annals of Operation Research, 318, 985–1000.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kamwa, E., & Merlin, V. (2015). Scoring rules over subsets of alternatives: Consistency and paradoxes. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 61, 130–138.CrossRef Kamwa, E., & Merlin, V. (2015). Scoring rules over subsets of alternatives: Consistency and paradoxes. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 61, 130–138.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kilgour, D. M., Brams, S. J., & Sanver, M. R. (2006). How to elect a representative committee using approval balloting. In B. Simeone & F. Pukelsheim (Eds.), Mathematics and democracy (pp. 83–95). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef Kilgour, D. M., Brams, S. J., & Sanver, M. R. (2006). How to elect a representative committee using approval balloting. In B. Simeone & F. Pukelsheim (Eds.), Mathematics and democracy (pp. 83–95). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kilgour, D. M. (2010). Approval balloting for multi-winner elections. In J. F. Laslier & M. R. Sanver (Eds.), Handbook on approval voting (pp. 105–124). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef Kilgour, D. M. (2010). Approval balloting for multi-winner elections. In J. F. Laslier & M. R. Sanver (Eds.), Handbook on approval voting (pp. 105–124). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kilgour, D. M., & Marshall, E. (2012). Approval balloting for fixed-size committees. In D. S. Felsenthal & M. Machover (Eds.), Electoral systems: Paradoxes, assumptions, and procedures (pp. 305–326). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef Kilgour, D. M., & Marshall, E. (2012). Approval balloting for fixed-size committees. In D. S. Felsenthal & M. Machover (Eds.), Electoral systems: Paradoxes, assumptions, and procedures (pp. 305–326). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kondratev, A., & Mazalov, V. (2017). A Ranking Procedure with the Shapley Value. In Nguyen, N., Tojo, S., Nguyen, L., & Trawiński, B. (eds) Intelligent Information and Database Systems. ACIIDS 2017. Kondratev, A., & Mazalov, V. (2017). A Ranking Procedure with the Shapley Value. In Nguyen, N., Tojo, S., Nguyen, L., & Trawiński, B. (eds) Intelligent Information and Database Systems. ACIIDS 2017.
Zurück zum Zitat Lackner, M., & Skowron, P. (2021). Consistent approval-based multi-winner rules. Journal of Economic Theory, 192, 105–173.CrossRef Lackner, M., & Skowron, P. (2021). Consistent approval-based multi-winner rules. Journal of Economic Theory, 192, 105–173.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lackner, M., & Skowron, P. (2022). Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferences. Springer Briefs in Intelligent Systems Artificial Intelligence, Multiagent Systems, and Cognitive Robotics. Springer Cham. Lackner, M., & Skowron, P. (2022). Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferences. Springer Briefs in Intelligent Systems Artificial Intelligence, Multiagent Systems, and Cognitive Robotics. Springer Cham.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu, T., & Boutilier, C. (2011). Budgeted social choice: from consensus to personalized decision making. In Proceedings of the\(22^{nd}\)International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 280–286) Lu, T., & Boutilier, C. (2011). Budgeted social choice: from consensus to personalized decision making. In Proceedings of the\(22^{nd}\)International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 280–286)
Zurück zum Zitat Lucchetti, R., Moretti, S., & Patrone, F. (2015). Ranking sets of interacting objects via semi-values. TOP, 23, 567–590.CrossRef Lucchetti, R., Moretti, S., & Patrone, F. (2015). Ranking sets of interacting objects via semi-values. TOP, 23, 567–590.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Moretti, S. (2015). An axiomatic approach to social ranking under coalitional power relations. Homo Oeconomicus, 32(2), 183–208. Moretti, S. (2015). An axiomatic approach to social ranking under coalitional power relations. Homo Oeconomicus, 32(2), 183–208.
Zurück zum Zitat Ratliff, T. C. (2003). Some startling inconsistencies when electing committees. Social Choice and Welfare, 21(3), 433–454.CrossRef Ratliff, T. C. (2003). Some startling inconsistencies when electing committees. Social Choice and Welfare, 21(3), 433–454.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ratliff, T. C. (2006). Selecting Committees. Public Choice, 126, 343–355.CrossRef Ratliff, T. C. (2006). Selecting Committees. Public Choice, 126, 343–355.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ratliff, T. C., & Saari, D. G. (2014). Complexities of electing diverse committees. Social Choice and Welfare, 43, 55–71.CrossRef Ratliff, T. C., & Saari, D. G. (2014). Complexities of electing diverse committees. Social Choice and Welfare, 43, 55–71.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shapley, L. S. (1953). A value for \(n\) - person games. In H. Kuhn & A. W. Tucker (Eds.), Contribution to the theory of games II (pp. 307–317). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Shapley, L. S. (1953). A value for \(n\) - person games. In H. Kuhn & A. W. Tucker (Eds.), Contribution to the theory of games II (pp. 307–317). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Shmoys, D., Tardos, E., & Aardal, K. (1997). Approximation algorithms for facility location problems. In Proceedings of the 29th symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC -1997), (pp. 265–274) Shmoys, D., Tardos, E., & Aardal, K. (1997). Approximation algorithms for facility location problems. In Proceedings of the 29th symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC -1997), (pp. 265–274)
Zurück zum Zitat Skowron, P., Faliszewski, P., & Lang, J. (2016). Finding a collection set of items: From proportional multi representation to group recommendation. Artificial Intelligence, 241, 191–216.CrossRef Skowron, P., Faliszewski, P., & Lang, J. (2016). Finding a collection set of items: From proportional multi representation to group recommendation. Artificial Intelligence, 241, 191–216.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Uckelmen, J. (2010). Alice and Bob will fight: The problem of electing a committee in the presence of candidate interdependence. ECAI \(2010-19\)th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lisbon, Portugal, August \(16-20\), \(2010\), Proceedings. Uckelmen, J. (2010). Alice and Bob will fight: The problem of electing a committee in the presence of candidate interdependence. ECAI \(2010-19\)th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lisbon, Portugal, August \(16-20\), \(2010\), Proceedings.
Zurück zum Zitat Weber, R. J. (1995). Approval Voting. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(1), 39–49.CrossRef Weber, R. J. (1995). Approval Voting. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(1), 39–49.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
How to choose a compatible committee?
verfasst von
Ritu Dutta
Rajnish Kumar
Surajit Borkotokey
Publikationsdatum
17.04.2024
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Public Choice
Print ISSN: 0048-5829
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-024-01163-3

Premium Partner