Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This paper advances the theoretical foundations of multi-winner voting by introducing argumentative ballots, which allow voters to express defeasible preferences rather than simple approvals. The authors establish that this new framework is strictly more expressive while providing constructive algorithms for satisfying specific representation axioms despite inherent computational hardness in verification. By formalizing these results in Lean 4, the work bridges social choice theory and formal verification methods relevant to AI-driven decision systems.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Multi-Winner Voting with Argumentative Ballots

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2608.23247v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce multi-winner voting with argumentative ballots (MVArg) and investigate theoretical properties. As our conceptual contribution, we generalise approval ballots to argumentative ballots, thereby allowing voters to express defeasible preferences over candidates. We accordingly generalise voter cohesion and justified representation axioms JR, PJR and EJR. As our theoretical contribution, we establish several key results. First, MVArg is strictly more expressive than multi-winner voting with approval ballots (MV). Second, our notions of cohesion and justified representation are conservative generalisations of their counterparts in MV. Third, the MVArg counterpart of JR can always be satisfied, whereas the counterparts of PJR and EJR cannot always be. Fourth, although verifying whether a winner set satisfies the MVArg counterpart of JR is already coNP-hard, such a winner set can be constructed in polynomial time. All definitions, propositions, auxiliary lemmas and theorems have been formalised and mechanically checked in Lean 4.

Abstract:We introduce multi-winner voting with argumentative ballots (MVArg) and investigate theoretical properties. As our conceptual contribution, we generalise approval ballots to argumentative ballots, thereby allowing voters to express defeasible preferences over candidates. We accordingly generalise voter cohesion and justified representation axioms JR, PJR and EJR. As our theoretical contribution, we establish several key results. First, MVArg is strictly more expressive than multi-winner voting with approval ballots (MV). Second, our notions of cohesion and justified representation are conservative generalisations of their counterparts in MV. Third, the MVArg counterpart of JR can always be satisfied, whereas the counterparts of PJR and EJR cannot always be. Fourth, although verifying whether a winner set satisfies the MVArg counterpart of JR is already coNP-hard, such a winner set can be constructed in polynomial time. All definitions, propositions, auxiliary lemmas and theorems have been formalised and mechanically checked in Lean 4.

Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2608.23247 [cs.GT]

(or arXiv:2608.23247v1 [cs.GT] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.23247 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 245 words

Related coverage