  Motivated by civic problems such as participatory budgeting and multiwinner
elections, we consider the problem of public good allocation: Given a set of
indivisible projects (or candidates) of different sizes, and voters with
different monotone utility functions over subsets of these candidates, the goal
is to choose a budget-constrained subset of these candidates (or a committee)
that provides fair utility to the voters. The notion of fairness we adopt is
that of core stability from cooperative game theory: No subset of voters should
be able to choose another blocking committee of proportionally smaller size
that provides strictly larger utility to all voters that deviate. The core
provides a strong notion of fairness, subsuming other notions that have been
widely studied in computational social choice.
  It is well-known that an exact core need not exist even when utility
functions of the voters are additive across candidates. We therefore relax the
problem to allow approximation: Voters can only deviate to the blocking
committee if after they choose any extra candidate (called an additament),
their utility still increases by an $\alpha$ factor. If no blocking committee
exists under this definition, we call this an $\alpha$-core.
  Our main result is that an $\alpha$-core, for $\alpha < 67.37$, always exists
when utilities of the voters are arbitrary monotone submodular functions, and
this can be computed in polynomial time. This result improves to $\alpha <
9.27$ for additive utilities, albeit without the polynomial time guarantee. Our
results are a significant improvement over prior work that only shows
logarithmic approximations for the case of additive utilities. We complement
our results with a lower bound of $\alpha > 1.015$ for submodular utilities,
and a lower bound of any function in the number of voters and candidates for
general monotone utilities.
