阿尔加夫杯列第11名 中国女足需赢得该赢的比赛

Let $s=z(k+1)$; since $z\in\mathbb{N}$ so is $s$. Then $z-\frac{\ell n}{k+1}=\frac{s-\ell n}{k+1}$. Now, $z>\frac{\ell n}{k+1}$ implies $s-\ell n>0$; as $s$ and $\ell n$ are both integers, we obtain $s-\ell n\geq 1$. Hence $z-\frac{\ell n}{k+1}\geq\frac{1}{k+1}$, and the claim follows. ?

The argument that $\frac{1}{k^{2}}$-lsPAV runs in polynomial time is the same as in the work of Aziz et al.?[2]: each swap increases the PAV score by at least $\frac{1}{k^{2}}$, and the maximum possible PAV score is $n(1+\frac{1}{2}+\dots+\frac{1}{k})$, so the number of iterations is $O(nk^{2}\log k)$, and each iteration runs in time $O(k|C|\cdot nk)$.

To argue that $\frac{1}{k^{2}}$-lsPAV satisfies Droop-EJR+, we will show that if a size-$k$ committee $W$ fails to provide Droop-EJR+ then there exists a pair of candidates $(w,c)\in(W,C\setminus W)$ such that replacing $w$ with $c$ increases the PAV score by at least $\frac{1}{k^{2}}$; hence, when the algorithm terminates, $W$ provides Droop-EJR+.

Fix a committee $W$ that fails Droop-EJR+, as witnessed by $\ell\in[k]$, a group $S$ with $|S|>\frac{\ell n}{k+1}$ and $|A_{i}\cap W|\leq\ell-1$ for all $i\in S$, and a candidate $c\in\bigcap_{i\in S}A_{i}\setminus W$. Let $A_{S}=\bigcap_{i\in S}A_{i}$, and for every $w\in W$ let $m(w)=\operatorname{\mathrm{sc}_{\mathrm{PAV}}}(W)-\operatorname{\mathrm{sc}_{\mathrm{PAV}}}(W\setminus\{w\})$ be the marginal contribution of $w$. Also, let $W_{i}=A_{i}\cap W$ for each $i\in N$.

Note that $|A_{S}\cap W|\leq\ell-1$ and hence $W\setminus A_{S}\neq\varnothing$. Suppose we replace some $w\in W\setminus A_{S}$ with $c$; let $\Delta(w,c)$ denote the resulting change in PAV score. Since each $i\in S$ approves $c$, we have

Taking a sum over all candidates in $W\setminus A_{S}$, we get

Note that each voter $i\in N$ with $W_{i}=A_{i}\cap W\neq\varnothing$ contributes exactly 1 to $\sum_{w\in W}m(w)$: if $|W_{i}|=j$, then each candidate in $W_{i}$ provides a marginal contribution of $\frac{1}{j}$ to $i$’s ‘PAV utility’ . Therefore we obtain

Combining these inequalities, we get

where we use Lemma?1 to lower-bound $|S|$.

Hence, by the pigeonhole principle there is some candidate $w\in W\setminus A_{S}$ for which $\Delta(w,c)\geq\frac{1}{\ell k}\geq\frac{1}{k^{2}}$. ?

PAV satisfies Droop-EJR+, but does not satisfy FPJR?[15], which means that it also does not satisfy Droop-FJR. Now, consider the following example due to Brill and Peters?[10]: there are 3 candidates $c_{1},c_{2},c_{3}$, two voters with approval ballots $A_{1}=\{c_{1},c_{2}\}$ and $A_{2}=\{c_{1},c_{3}\}$ and $k=2$. Then the outcome $\{c_{2},c_{3}\}$ satisfies Droop-FJR but does not satisfy Droop-EJR+. ?

Let $W$ be an output of Droop GJCR. It is immediate that $W$ satisfies Droop-EJR+. Indeed, if there is an $\ell^{\prime}\in\mathbb{N}$, a candidate $c\in C\setminus W$, and a group of voters $S$ with $|S|>\frac{\ell^{\prime}n}{k+1}$ such that $c\in A_{i}$, $|A_{i}\cap W|<\ell^{\prime}$ for all $i\in S$, then $c$ would have been selected by the algorithm when $\ell=\ell^{\prime}$, a contradiction.

Now we show that $|W|=k$. To this end, we set up a pricing scheme with total budget of $k+1-\frac{1}{n}$ and a per-candidate cost of 1. The existence of this scheme proves that the rule selects at most $k$ candidates. We start by giving each voter a budget of $\frac{k+1}{n}-\frac{1}{n^{2}}$. If a candidate $c$ is selected because of a voter set $N^{\prime}=\{i\in N_{c}\,:\,|A_{i}\cap W|<\ell\}$ with $|N^{\prime}|>\frac{\ell n}{k+1}$ (and hence by Lemma?1 $|N^{\prime}|\geq\frac{\ell n+1}{k+1}$), we split the (unit) cost of $c$ equally among the voters in $N^{\prime}$, so that each voter in $N^{\prime}$ pays $\frac{1}{|N^{\prime}|}\leq\frac{k+1}{\ell n+1}$ for $c$. Consider a voter $i\in N^{\prime}$. Note that up to this point $i$ only spent their budget on candidates whose costs were shared by groups of size greater than $\frac{\ell n}{k+1}$, and $|A_{i}\cap W|<\ell$. Hence, before $c$ is selected, $i$’s total spending is at most $(\ell-1)\cdot\frac{k+1}{\ell n+1}$. Since $k\geq\ell$, we have

Therefore, we can bound the total spending of voter $i$ after purchasing $c$ as

As this is true for every voter at every point in the execution of the algorithm, no voter ever overspends their budget. Since the total budget of the voters is less than $k+1$, we have that at most $k$ candidates are purchased. ?

First note that $\frac{n}{kn+1}<\frac{1}{k}$ and hence $n\cdot\frac{(k+1)n}{kn+1}<(k+1)\cdot\frac{n}{k}$. Therefore, collectively the voters can purchase at most $k$ candidates.

To prove that MES/EES with this virtual budget satisfy Droop EJR+, we assume for contradiction that on some election these rules output a committee $W$ that does not provide Droop-EJR+. That is, there exists a group of voters $S$ with $|S|>\ell\cdot\frac{n}{k+1}$ and $|W\cap A_{i}|\leq\ell-1$ for all $i\in S$, and a candidate $c\in\bigcap_{i\in S}A_{i}\setminus W$.

Suppose first that $\ell=1$. Then each voter in $S$ approves no candidates in $W$ and therefore still has her original budget. By Lemma?1 we have $|S|\geq\frac{n+1}{k+1}$, so voters in $S$ collectively have at least

dollars and can afford to share the cost of $c$ equally, a contradiction.

Thus, from now on we will assume $\ell\geq 2$. We claim that the budget of some voter $i^{\prime}\in S$ is less than $\frac{n}{k|S|}$. Indeed, if not, then the rule would purchase $c$, splitting its cost $\frac{n}{k}$ among the voters in $S$. Since $i^{\prime}$ paid for at most $\ell-1$ candidates in $W$, there exists a candidate $c^{\prime}\in W$ such that $i^{\prime}$ spent more than

dollars on $c^{\prime}$. Consider the first time the algorithm bought a candidate $c^{*}$ whose affordability threshold was greater than $q$. We claim that at this time, each voter $i\in S$ had at least $\frac{n}{k|S|}$ dollars left. Indeed, we have

Thus at this point in time, the members of $S$ could buy $c$ at affordability threshold of at most $\frac{n}{k|S|}$. To obtain a contradiction, we will show that $\frac{n}{k|S|}\leq q$. Indeed, by Lemma?1 we have $|S|\geq\frac{\ell n+1}{k+1}$ and hence with $\ell\leq k$, this implies $\frac{n\ell}{k|S|}\leq\frac{n(k+1)\ell}{k(\ell n+1)}\leq\frac{n(k+1)\ell}{k\ell n+\ell}=\frac{n(k+1)}{kn+1}$. Therefore,

dividing both sides by $\ell-1$, we conclude that $q\geq\frac{n}{k|S|}$. But this is a contradiction, since the algorithm buys the candidate with the lowest affordability threshold, and we know that the affordability threshold of $c^{*}$ is strictly larger than $q$, i.e., higher than that of $c$. We conclude that MES/EES satisfy Droop-EJR+. ?

Assume for contradiction that there is a group of voters $S$ with $|S|>\frac{n}{k+1}$, $\pi(i)\notin A_{i}$ for all $i\in S$, and a candidate $c^{\prime}\in(\bigcap_{i\in S}A_{i})\setminus W$. Since $|S|>\frac{n}{k+1}$ and the Droop Monroe rule assigns exactly $\frac{n}{k+1}$ voters to each candidate in $W\cup\{d\}$, we have $\pi(i^{*})\neq d$ for some $i^{*}\in S$; let $c=\pi(i^{*})$.

We will now argue that replacing $c$ with $c^{\prime}$ in $W$, i.e., setting $W^{\prime}=W\cup\{c^{\prime}\}\setminus\{c\}$, increases the Droop Monroe score. To this end, we construct the mapping $\pi^{\prime}:N\to W^{\prime}$ as follows. Let $N^{\prime}=\{i\in N\setminus S:\pi(i)=c\}$; since there are exactly $\frac{n}{k+1}$ voters with $\pi(i)=c$, and one of these voters is $i^{*}$, who is not in $N^{\prime}$, we have $|N^{\prime}|\leq\frac{n}{k+1}-1$. As $|S|>\frac{n}{k+1}$, there is a proper subset $S^{\prime}\subset S$ with $|S^{\prime}|=|N^{\prime}|$ such that $\pi(i)\neq c$ for all $i\in S^{\prime}$. Let $\sigma:N^{\prime}\to S^{\prime}$ be a bijection between $N^{\prime}$ and $S^{\prime}$, and set $\pi^{\prime}(i):=\pi(\sigma(i))$, $\pi^{\prime}(\sigma(i)):=c^{\prime}$ for each $i\in N^{\prime}$. Further, for each $i\in S$ with $\pi(i)=c$ set $\pi^{\prime}(i):=c^{\prime}$. For all voters in $N\setminus N^{\prime}$ and all voters in $S\setminus S^{\prime}$ with $\pi(i)\neq c$ set $\pi^{\prime}(i):=\pi(i)$. Note that $(W^{\prime},\pi^{\prime})$ is a valid assignment with $\frac{n}{k+1}$ voters in $S$ assigned to $c^{\prime}$.

We claim that the Monroe score of $(W^{\prime},\pi^{\prime})$ is strictly higher than that of $(W,\pi)$. Indeed, compared to $(W,\pi)$, the assignment $(W^{\prime},\pi^{\prime})$ benefits the $\frac{n}{k+1}$ voters in $S$ that are now assigned to $c^{\prime}$ and harms at most $|N^{\prime}|\leq\frac{n}{k+1}-1$ voters in $N^{\prime}$; all other voters are assigned to the same candidates under $\pi$ and $\pi^{\prime}$. This is a contradiction with our choice of $(W,\pi)$. ?