Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

The Panel Complexity of Sortition: Is 12 Angry Men Enough?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Randomly selected panels of size $O((1/\varepsilon)^2(\log \ell + \log(1/\delta)))$ are representative of the whole population, and near-tight panel complexity bounds follow for participatory budgeting and facility location.

desk verdict A genuinely useful representativeness framework with near-tight upper bounds, but the T=2 tightness result has a real proof gap that needs fixing before the paper is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20508 v2 pith:6O7ZHNS3 submitted 2025-04-29 cs.GT

Johannes Brustle , Simone Fioravanti , Tomasz Ponitka , Jeremy Vollen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 91B1491B72
keywords sortitionpanelcomplexityrepresentativepanelsWassersteindistanceparticipatorybudgetingfacilitylocationcorefairnesssamplingwithoutreplacement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Sortition asks how many randomly chosen citizens are enough for a panel to make decisions that can stand in for the whole population. This paper answers by showing that distributional representativeness is a transferable property: if the panel's and the population's feature distributions are $\varepsilon$-close in Wasserstein distance, then deliberation guarantees valid on the panel carry over to the population. A uniformly random panel of size $O((1/\varepsilon)^2(\log \ell + \log(1/\delta)))$ is $\varepsilon$-representative for any $\ell$ real-valued features with probability $1-\delta$. From this, near-tight panel complexity bounds follow for participatory budgeting with Lipschitz preferences and for facility location, including outlier control in arbitrary metric spaces. The practical upshot is that panel size can be set from the desired accuracy, confidence, and problem dimension rather than by tradition.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Wasserstein-1 distance $W(\varphi_{[n]}^f,\varphi_S^f)$ between the empirical feature distributions of the population and the panel, where the metric-space distance is bounded by $1$. Two lemmas carry the analysis: one uses convexity to reduce sampling without replacement to the easier case of independent sampling, and the other supplies a concentration inequality for the Wasserstein distance under sampling without replacement. These turn representativeness into a sample-complexity statement, and an $\varepsilon$-covering of the policy space converts the social-choice objective into finitely many real-valued features. The lower bounds are mounted by camouflaged populations, where any panel smaller than $\Omega(hw^2)$ cannot distinguish which of two hidden majority directions is present.

What would settle it

For a population split evenly between 0 and 1, simulate uniform $k$-panels and compare the measured fraction failing $\varepsilon$-representativeness with the concentration bound $\exp(-\varepsilon^2 k/4)$; any systematic excess would falsify the lemma on which all upper bounds rest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a uniformly random panel can provably inherit the decision quality of the full population, provided the panel's own decision satisfies a stated guarantee. The paper defines a panel $S$ to be $\varepsilon$-representative for feature $f$ when the Wasserstein distance between the population distribution $\varphi_{[n]}^f$ and the panel distribution $\varphi_S^f$ is at most $\varepsilon$, and proves that this holds simultaneously for any $\ell$ real-valued features once $k=O((1/\varepsilon)^2(\log \ell + \log(1/\delta)))$. That single transfer lemma drives every positive result: a participatory-budgeting panel whose allocation is near-optimal or core-fair for its members yields an allocation that is near-optimal or core-fair for the whole population, and a facility-location panel that minimizes total distance to its members yields a near-optimal facility in metric spaces whose Assouad dimension (a covering-scale notion of dimension) is bounded. The paper also gives almost matching lower bounds via camouflaged populations, which look nearly uniform to any small panel while hiding a sign vector that a successful decision rule would have to recover.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that panels are drawn uniformly at random from the whole population and that the panel's actual decision process meets the assumed guarantee, such as near-optimal panel cost or panel-level core fairness; if selection is stratified or deliberations behave differently, the stated sizes have no force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A participatory-budgeting panel of size $O((1/\varepsilon)^2 m\log(1/\varepsilon))$ whose allocation is within additive $\tau$ and multiplicative $\rho$ of the panel optimum produces expected population social cost within $\rho\cdot\mathrm{Opt}+\tau+\varepsilon$.
  • A panel of size $O((1/\varepsilon)^2(m\log(1/\varepsilon)+\log(1/\delta)))$ that is $(\eta,\tau,\rho)$-core-fair for its members is $(\eta+\varepsilon,\tau+\varepsilon,\rho)$-core-fair for the whole population with probability at least $1-\delta$.
  • In any metric space, a panel that minimizes total distance to its members keeps the facility within $T\cdot\mathrm{Opt}$ with probability $1-\delta$ once $k=O(\log(1/\delta))$, for any constant $T>2$, and no such guarantee holds at $T=2$.
  • In a metric space of Assouad dimension $t$, panel size $O((1/\varepsilon)^2 t\log(1/\varepsilon))$ gives expected social cost at most $(1+\varepsilon)\mathrm{Opt}$, and the lower bound $\Omega((1/\varepsilon)^2 t)$ for the $\ell_\infty$ cube shows the dependence on $t$ is necessary.
  • For multiple facilities on the line, $k=O(1/\varepsilon^2)$ suffices for an additive $\varepsilon$ guarantee on expected social cost, independent of the number of facilities.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the representativeness bound is independent of the population size $n$, the same formula applies to a small town and a large country; a convener learning panel size from this theorem would never need to know the population count.
  • The transfer argument is modular: any social-choice setting whose objective can be approximated by finitely many Lipschitz features should inherit a similar $O((1/\varepsilon)^2 \log(1/\varepsilon))$ panel complexity, making indivisible participatory budgeting and committee selection natural next targets.
  • If stratified or quota-based selection is introduced, the Wasserstein transfer would need a weighted or conditional version; these uniform-selection bounds are the natural baseline to test whether stratification can shrink panels without losing representativeness.
  • The impossibility of a purely multiplicative guarantee in participatory budgeting means additive slack is intrinsic, so any deployed sortition-based budgeting process should publish an explicit additive error budget alongside the chosen allocation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Wasserstein-distance-based definition of eps-representative panels and uses it as a unified tool to study panel complexity in two social choice settings: participatory budgeting and facility location. The main upper bounds state that uniformly random panels of size O((1/eps)^2 (log ell + log(1/delta))) are eps-representative for ell real-valued features (Theorem 2.5), and that this yields near-tight panel complexity bounds for welfare and core fairness in participatory budgeting and for facility-location welfare and outlier control. Lower bounds are obtained through camouflaged populations and reduce to an external sample-complexity lower bound. The paper also gives an impossibility result for purely multiplicative guarantees in participatory budgeting and a multiple-facility extension.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a useful conceptual contribution by connecting sortition panel representativeness to statistical sample complexity. Theorem 2.5 is clean, general, and likely to be reusable beyond the two applications studied. A notable strength is that the lower bounds apply to arbitrary panel decision functions subject only to the assumed deliberation guarantee, rather than to specific voting rules. The appendix contains substantial proofs for the upper and lower bounds, and the high-level framework is a promising way to make the panel-size question quantitative. The main qualifications are that the guarantees are conditional on uniform panel selection and on panel-level behavior assumptions, both of which are stated explicitly by the authors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix E.1, Theorem 4.9] The proof of the T=2 tightness lower bound is invalid as written. The claim that, conditioned on the panel omitting the pivotal agent, the panel decision function selects 0 with probability at least 1/2 or selects 1 with probability at least 1/2 is false for balanced panels: when a panel contains equal numbers of 0- and 1-agents, every point in [0,1] is panel-optimal, so an admissible tie-breaking rule may select an interior point. Concretely, for k=2 with population locations (0,0,1,1,0), let the decision function return the unique median when one exists and return 0.5 on balanced panels. This function is a valid panel-optimal choice, but enumerating all C(5,2)=10 panels gives failure probability 1/10 for the event d(q(S),q*) >= 2*Social-Opt, not the claimed 1/4. Thus the assertion that the guarantee of Theorem 4.2 does not hold for T=2 is not established by the supplied argument. The theorem may be repairable, for example by taking K agents at each endpoint with K large relative to k, but a corrected proof is needed.
  2. [Lemmas 4.6 and 4.8 (proof of Theorem 4.2)] The reduction steps for the outlier upper bound do not account for ties among panel-optimal facilities. In the proof of Lemma 4.6, the strict inequality sum_{i in S} d_X(q*,x_i) > sum_{i in S} d_X(qbar(S,I),x_i) is used whenever qbar(S,I) differs from q*, but this fails when q* is also panel-optimal. For example, with population locations (0,1,1), q*=1, T=3, and panel S={0,1}, both 0 and 1 have panel cost 1, so a far point can be panel-optimal while q* is also a minimizer. In the reduced instance J the image of q* may then be chosen by the tie-breaking rule, and condition (i) fails for the selected point. The same issue reappears in Lemma 4.8 when q* and a far alternative have equal f_S values. The proof should track the set of panel-optimal points (equivalently, worst-case tie-breaking) rather than an arbitrary selected point; as written, Theorem 4.2 does not control adversarial tie-breaking.
  3. [Theorem 3.6] The statement of Theorem 3.6 says the panel size is k = Omega((1/eps)^2 (m log(1/eps) + log(1/delta))), but the proof and the intended upper bound require k = O(...); this is the opposite inequality and must be corrected. In the same proof, the covering condition ||y - y'||_1 <= eps/(2B) gives |sum_j y_j/B - sum_j y'_j/B| <= eps/(2B^2), which is not at most eps/2 when B < 1. The argument therefore needs a covering radius of eps*B/2 for the budget-fraction comparison (the covering number remains O((1/eps)^m) after scaling the simplex), or an equivalent repair. These are technical fixes, but they are needed for the proof of the core-transfer claim to be valid for the full stated range of budgets.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 3.2, proof] The proof uses an eps/(12 rho)-covering but then claims the panel is (eps/12)-representative; with this combination, inequality (2) only follows when rho=1. The intended argument presumably needs (eps/(12 rho))-representativeness, which is consistent with the stated O((1/eps)^2 m log(1/eps)) bound since rho is a constant.
  2. [Lemma 4.5] In the proof, the definition of S2 should be the complement of S1; as printed, 'S2 = [n] \ S2' is a typo and should read S2 = [n] \ S1.
  3. [Theorem 4.2, proof] The equivalence 'q(S)=0 iff sum_{i in S} x_i <= (T/2)k' assumes a specific tie-breaking rule at equality; for the upper bound this is harmless because q(S)=T implies sum_{i in S} x_i >= (T/2)k, but the text should state the implication rather than the equivalence.
  4. [Theorem 4.15] The 'without loss of generality' assumption that q1 != 1 and q2 != 1 is not valid when the decision function returns (1,1) on the all-zero input; in that case a simpler instance with all agents at 0 already gives the desired failure, so the proof should split into cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the upper and lower bounds reduce to external concentration and sample-complexity lemmas, not to the paper's own conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. Theorem 2.5 is proved from [14, Prop. 2.1] (an external i.i.d. Wasserstein expectation bound), Lemma 2.3 (Hoeffding's convexity comparison for sampling without replacement), and Lemma 2.4 (Weed-Bach bounded differences with Sambale-Sinulis concentration). The participatory-budgeting upper bounds (Theorems 3.2 and 3.6) are Lipschitz/covering reductions to Theorem 2.5; the facility-location upper bounds (Theorems 4.2, 4.11, 4.14) use direct Hoeffding bounds, covering-number arguments, and Lemma 4.13. In no case is the theorem being proved assumed in its own proof. The lower bounds (Theorems 3.3 and 4.12) reduce to Lemma 2.8, which cites [16, Lemma 5.10]; although [16] shares an author with this paper, the cited lemma is a parameter-free sample-complexity lower bound whose assumptions do not include the present target results, so it is independent evidence rather than a self-citation chain. The Wasserstein representativeness notion is a definition, not a derived output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only substantive concern raised about the paper, the tie-breaking step in Theorem 4.9, is a correctness issue about arbitrary panel decision functions rather than a circular reduction, and therefore does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces a definition (epsilon-representativeness) and uses standard concentration and covering tools; no free parameters are fitted to data. The main domain assumptions are uniform sampling and the panel-level deliberation guarantee, both stated explicitly and both identified by the authors as limitations for practical settings.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Panels are drawn uniformly at random from the population (Section 2.1).
    All upper bounds rely on S ~ U_{k,n}; non-uniform selection is left to future work (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Agent cost functions in participatory budgeting are monotone and 1-Lipschitz (Section 3.1).
    The covering argument and Lipschitz steps in Theorems 3.2 and 3.6 depend on the 1-Lipschitz bound.
  • domain assumption The panel decision function achieves the stated panel-level approximation guarantee (Theorems 3.2, 3.6, 4.2, 4.11).
    The population guarantees are conditional on the panel choosing an allocation or facility that approximately optimizes panel welfare or satisfies panel core.
  • standard math Wasserstein sample complexity bound [14, Proposition 2.1].
    Theorem 2.5 uses E W(phi, phi_S) <= eps/2 for iid samples of size O(1/eps^2).
  • standard math Hoeffding's inequality for sampling without replacement [36] and Sambale-Sinulis concentration [47].
    Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4 rely on these external concentration results.
  • standard math Assouad dimension covering property (Definition 4.10).
    Theorem 4.11 uses K = O((1/eps)^t) covering points for spaces of Assouad dimension t.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Panel Complexity of Sortition: Is 12 Angry Men Enough?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6O7ZHNS3

@misc{pith2026250420508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Panel Complexity of Sortition: Is 12 Angry Men Enough?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6O7ZHNS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20508}
}
read the original abstract

Sortition is the practice of delegating public decision-making to randomly selected panels. Recently, it has gained momentum worldwide through its use in citizens' assemblies, sparking growing interest within the computer science community. One key appeal of sortition is that random panels tend to be more representative of the population than elected committees or parliaments. Our main conceptual contribution is a novel definition of representative panels, based on the Wasserstein distance from statistical learning theory. Using this definition, we develop a framework for analyzing the panel complexity problem -- determining the required panel size to ensure desirable properties. We focus on three key desiderata: (1) that efficiency at the panel level extends to the whole population, measured by social welfare; (2) that fairness guarantees for the panel translate to fairness for the population, captured by the core; and (3) that the probability of an outlier panel, for which the decision significantly deviates from the optimal one, remains low. We establish near-tight panel complexity guarantees for these desiderata across two fundamental social choice settings: participatory budgeting and facility location.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the reductions described in Lemmas 4.7 and 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anagnostides, D

    I. Anagnostides, D. Fotakis, and P. Patsilinakos. Metric-distor tion bounds under limited information. J. Artif. Intell. Res. , 74:1449–1483, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Anshelevich and J

    E. Anshelevich and J. Postl. Randomized social choice functions u nder metric preferences. J. Artif. Intell. Res. , 58:797–827, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Arjovsky, S

    M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, and L. Bottou. Wasserstein generat ive adversarial networks. In ICML, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 214–223. PMLR, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Aziz and N

    H. Aziz and N. Shah. Participatory budgeting: Models and approa ches. Pathways Between Social Science and Computational Social Science: Theories, Metho ds, and Interpretations , pages 215–236, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    H. Aziz, B. E. Lee, S. Morota Chu, and J. Vollen. Proportionally re presentative clustering. In WINE, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Baharav and B

    C. Baharav and B. Flanigan. Fair, manipulation-robust, and tran sparent sortition. In EC, pages 756–

    work page

  7. [7]

    Benad` e, P

    G. Benad` e, P. G¨ olz, and A. D. Procaccia. No stratification with out representation. In EC, pages 281–314. ACM, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Caragiannis and K

    I. Caragiannis and K. Fehrs. The complexity of learning approval- based multiwinner voting rules. In AAAI, pages 4925–4932. AAAI Press, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Caragiannis, E

    I. Caragiannis, E. Micha, and J. Peters. Can a few decide for man y? the metric distortion of sortition. In ICML. OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    H. Chan, A. Filos-Ratsikas, B. Li, M. Li, and C. Wang. Mechanism d esign for facility location problems: A survey. In IJCAI, pages 4356–4365. ijcai.org, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    X. Chen, B. Fain, L. Lyu, and K. Munagala. Proportionally fair clu stering. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 1032–1041. PMLR, 2019. 23

    2019

  4. [12]

    Cheng, S

    Y. Cheng, S. Dughmi, and D. Kempe. Of the people: Voting is more effective with representative candidates. In EC, pages 305–322. ACM, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Cheng, S

    Y. Cheng, S. Dughmi, and D. Kempe. On the distortion of voting w ith multiple representative candi- dates. In AAAI, pages 973–980. AAAI Press, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Chewi, J

    S. Chewi, J. Niles-Weed, and P. Rigollet. Statistical optimal tran sport. CoRR, abs/2407.18163, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dey and A

    P. Dey and A. Bhattacharyya. Sample complexity for winner pre diction in elections. In AAMAS, pages 1421–1430. ACM, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Duetting, M

    P. Duetting, M. Feldman, T. Ponitka, and E. Soumalias. The pseu do-dimension of contracts. CoRR, abs/2501.14474, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ebadian and E

    S. Ebadian and E. Micha. Boosting sortition via proportional rep resentation. CoRR, abs/2406.00913, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ebadian, G

    S. Ebadian, G. Kehne, E. Micha, A. D. Procaccia, and N. Shah. I s sortition both representative and fair? In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    B. Fain, A. Goel, and K. Munagala. The core of the participatory budgeting problem. In WINE, volume 10123 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 384–399. Springer, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    B. Fain, A. Goel, K. Munagala, and S. Sakshuwong. Sequential d eliberation for social choice. In WINE, volume 10660 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 177–190. Springer, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    B. Fain, A. Goel, K. Munagala, and N. Prabhu. Random dictators with a random referee: Constant sample complexity mechanisms for social choice. In AAAI, pages 1893–1900. AAAI Press, 2019

    1900

  14. [22]

    B. Fain, W. Fan, and K. Munagala. Concentration of distortion: The value of extra voters in randomized social choice. In IJCAI, pages 110–116. ijcai.org, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    J. S. Fishkin. Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Po litics through Public Deliberation. Oxford University Press, 2018. ISBN 0-19-255189-2

    2018

  16. [24]

    Flanigan, P

    B. Flanigan, P. G¨ olz, A. Gupta, and A. D. Procaccia. Neutralizin g self-selection bias in sampling for sortition. In NeurIPS, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Flanigan, P

    B. Flanigan, P. G¨ olz, A. Gupta, B. Hennig, and A. D. Procaccia. Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies. Nat., 596(7873):548–552, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Flanigan, G

    B. Flanigan, G. Kehne, and A. D. Procaccia. Fair sortition made t ransparent. In NeurIPS, pages 25720–25731, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Flanigan, J

    B. Flanigan, J. Liang, A. D. Procaccia, and S. Wang. Manipulation -robust selection of citizens’ assem- blies. In AAAI, pages 9696–9703. AAAI Press, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    D. K. Foley. Lindahl’s Solution and the Core of an Economy with Pub lic Goods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages 66–72, 1970

    1970

  21. [29]

    Gastil and E

    J. Gastil and E. O. Wright. Legislature by lot: Transformative designs for deliberati ve governance. Verso Books, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    A. Goel, A. K. Krishnaswamy, S. Sakshuwong, and T. Aitamurto . Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting. ACM Trans. Economics and Comput. , 7(2):8:1–8:27, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    A. Goel, M. Goyal, and K. Munagala. Metric distortion of small-gro up deliberation. In To Appear in STOC 2025 , 2025. 24

    2025

  24. [32]

    C. Gorski. The mathematics of jury size. Inside Science , March 2012. URL https://ww2.aip.org/inside-science/the-mathematics- of-jury-size

    2012

  25. [33]

    Goyal, S

    M. Goyal, S. Sakshuwong, S. Sarmasarkar, and A. Goel. Low sa mple complexity participatory budgeting. In ICALP, volume 261 of LIPIcs, pages 70:1–70:20. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Gross and V

    D. Gross and V. Nesme. Note on sampling without replacing from a finite collection of matrices. CoRR, abs/1001.2738, 2010

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Halpern, A

    D. Halpern, A. D. Procaccia, E. Shapiro, and N. Talmon. Federa ted assemblies. In AAAI, pages 13897–13904. AAAI Press, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Hoeffding

    W. Hoeffding. Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301):13–30, 1963

    1963

  29. [37]

    Y. H. Kalayci, D. Kempe, and V. Kher. Proportional represent ation in metric spaces and low-distortion committee selection. In AAAI, pages 9815–9823. AAAI Press, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kellerhals and J

    L. Kellerhals and J. Peters. Proportional fairness in clustering : A social choice perspective. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    R. Meir, F. Sandomirskiy, and M. Tennenholtz. Representative committees of peers. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 71:401–429, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Micha and N

    E. Micha and N. Shah. Proportionally fair clustering revisited. In ICALP, volume 168 of LIPIcs, pages 85:1–85:16. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    K. Ni, X. Bresson, T. F. Chan, and S. Esedoglu. Local histogra m based segmentation using the wasser- stein distance. Int. J. Comput. Vis. , 84(1):97–111, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Insti tutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave

    OECD. Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Insti tutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2020. doi: 10.1787/339306da-en

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    S. H. Owen and M. S. Daskin. Strategic facility location: A review. European journal of operational research, 111(3):423–447, 1998

    1998

  36. [44]

    Polaczyk

    B. Polaczyk. Concentration bounds for sampling without replac ement and hoeffding statistics. CoRR, abs/2301.03096, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Rey and J

    S. Rey and J. Maly. The (computational) social choice take on ind ivisible participatory budgeting. CoRR, abs/2303.00621, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. A. Ruzon and C. Tomasi. Edge, junction, and corner detect ion using color distributions. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 23(11):1281–1295, 2001

    2001

  39. [47]

    Sambale and A

    H. Sambale and A. Sinulis. Concentration inequalities on the multislic e and for sampling without replacement. Journal of Theoretical Probability , 35:2712–2737, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    A. Tamir. The k-centrum multi-facility location problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics , 109(3):293– 307, 2001

    2001

  41. [49]

    C. Villani. Optimal Transport: Old and New . Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Walsh and L

    T. Walsh and L. Xia. Lot-based voting rules. In AAMAS, pages 603–610. IF AAMAS, 2012

    2012

  43. [51]

    Weed and F

    J. Weed and F. Bach. Sharp asymptotic and finite-sample rates of convergence of empirical measures in wasserstein distance. CoRR, abs/1707.00087, 2017. 25

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. S. Williams. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Faili ngs of Liberal Represen- tation. Princeton University Press, 2000

    2000

  45. [53]

    I. M. Young. Inclusion and Democracy . Oxford University press on demand, 2002. A Metric Space Preliminaries The following are basic definitions of metric spaces used throughout this work. Definition A.1 (Metric Space) . A pair (X,d ), where d : X × X → [0, 1], is a metric space if:

    2002

  46. [54]

    d(x,x ) = 0 for all x ∈ X (identity),

  47. [55]

    d(x,y ) = d(y,x ) for all x,y ∈ X (symmetry),

  48. [56]

    The r-ball centered at x ∈ X is defined as Br(x) = {y ∈ X | d(x,y ) ≤r}

    d(x,z ) ≤d(x,y ) +d(y,z ) for all x,y,z ∈ X (triangle inequality). The r-ball centered at x ∈ X is defined as Br(x) = {y ∈ X | d(x,y ) ≤r}. We also define a covering of a metric space. Definition A.2 (ǫ-Covering). A set (x1,...,x k) ∈ Xk is an ǫ-covering of (X,d ) if the union of...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.