You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Committee scoring voting rules are multiwinner analogues of positional scoring rules which constitute an important subclass of single-winner voting rules. We identify several natural subclasses of committee scoring rules, namely, weakly separable, representation-focused, top- @math -counting, OWA-based, and decomposable rules. We characterize SNTV, Bloc, and @math -Approval Chamberlin--Courant as the only nontrivial rules in pairwise intersections of these classes. We provide some axiomatic characterizations for these classes, where monotonicity properties appear to be especially useful. The class of decomposable rules is new to the literature. We show that it strictly contains the class of OWA-based rules and describe some of the applications of decomposable rules.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: 

[2]: Approval voting is a well-known voting procedure for single-winner elections. Voters approve of as many candidates as they like, and the candidate with the most approvals wins (Brams and Fishburn 1978, 1983, 2005). But Merrill and Nagel (1987) point out that there are many ways to aggregate approval votes to determine a winner, justifying a distinction between approval balloting, in which each voter submits a ballot that identifies the candidates the voter approves of, and approval voting, the procedure of ranking the candidates according to their total numbers of approvals.

[3]: 

[4]: This paper is an axiomatic study of consistent approval-based multi-winner rules, i.e., voting rules that select a fixed-size group of candidates based on approval ballots. We introduce the class of counting rules, provide an axiomatic characterization of this class and, in particular, show that counting rules are consistent. Building upon this result, we axiomatically characterize three important consistent multi-winner rules: Proportional Approval Voting, Multi-Winner Approval Voting and the Approval Chamberlin--Courant rule. Our results demonstrate the variety of multi-winner rules and illustrate three different, orthogonal principles that multi-winner voting rules may represent: individual excellence, diversity, and proportionality.

[5]: In this paper we study several monotonicity axioms in approval-based multi-winner voting rules. We consider monotonicity with respect to the support received by the winners and also monotonicity in the size of the committee. Monotonicity with respect to the support is studied when the set of voters does not change and when new voters enter the election. For each of these two cases we consider a strong and a weak version of the axiom. We observe certain incompatibilities between the monotonicity axioms and well-known representation axioms (extended proportional justified representation) for the voting rules that we analyze and provide formal proofs of incompatibility between some of these axioms and perfect representation.

[6]: We study computational aspects of three prominent voting rules that use approval ballots to elect multiple winners. These rules are satisfaction approval voting, proportional approval voting, and reweighted approval voting. We first show that computing the winner for proportional approval voting is NP-hard, closing a long standing open problem. As none of the rules are strategyproof, even for dichotomous preferences, we study various strategic aspects of the rules. In particular, we examine the computational complexity of computing a best response for both a single agent and a group of agents. In many settings, we show that it is NP-hard for an agent or agents to compute how best to vote given a fixed set of approval ballots from the other agents.

[7]: The issue of fair representation will take center stage as U.S. congressional districts are reapportioned based on the 2000 Census. Using U.S. history as a guide, the authors develop a theory of fair representation that establishes various principles for translating state populations --or vote totals of parties --into a fair allocation of congressional seats. They conclude that the current apportionment formula cheats the larger states in favor of the smaller, contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers and compromising the Supreme Court's ""one man, one vote"" rulings. Balinski and Young interweave the theoretical development with a rich historical account of controversies over representation, and show how many of these principles grew out of political contests in the course of United States history. The result is a work that is at once history, politics, and popular science. The book --updated with data from the 1980 and 1990 Census counts --vividly demonstrates that apportionment deals with the very substance of political power.
[7] [6] studied a class of approval-based rules that is very similar to the class of committee scoring rules (the class was first introduced by Thiele [1] in the 19th century, but was forgotten for some time; some of Thiele's rules were recalled by Kilgour [2] and then by ). Lackner and Skowron [4] studied axiomatic properties of these rules and highlighted their axiomatic similarity to committee scoring rules. Recently, monotonicity notions similar to those studied in this paper were also considered in the context of approval-based multiwinner rules [5] [4] . For more general discussions of the properties of approval-based rules we point the reader to the work of Kilgour and Marshall [3] .