Abstract not found

We provide an overview of more than two decades of work, mostly in AI, that studies computational complexity as a barrier against manipulation in elections.

In 1992, Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick [1992] opened the study of control attacks on elections—attempts to improve the election outcome by such actions as adding/deleting candidates or voters. That work has led to many results on how algorithms can be used to find attacks on elections and how complexity-theoretic hardness results can be used as shields against attacks. However, all the work in this line has assumed that the attacker employs just a single type of attack. In this paper, we model and study the case in which the attacker launches a multipronged (i.e., multimode) attack. We do so to more realistically capture the richness of reallife settings. For example, an attacker might simultaneously try to suppress some voters, attract new voters into the election, and introduce a spoiler candidate. Our model provides a unified framework for such varied attacks, and by constructing polynomial-time multiprong attack algorithms we prove that for various election systems even such concerted, flexible attacks can be perfectly planned in deterministic polynomial time. 1

In a combinatorial auction, a set of items is for sale, and agents can bid on subsets of these items. In a voting setting, the agents decide among a set of alternatives by having each agent rank all the alternatives. Many of the key research issues in these two domains are similar. The aim of this paper is to give a convenient side-by-side comparison that will clarify the relation between the domains, and serve as a guide to future research. 1

The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem asserts that any reasonable voting rule cannot be strategyproof. A large body of research in AI deals with circumventing this theorem via computational considerations; the goal is to design voting rules that are computationally hard, in the worst-case, to manipulate. However, recent work indicates that the prominent voting rules are usually easy to manipulate. In this paper, we suggest a new CS-oriented approach to circumventing Gibbard-Satterthwaite, using randomization and approximation. Specifically, we wish to design strategyproof randomized voting rules that are close, in a standard approximation sense, to prominent score-based (deterministic) voting rules. We give tight lower and upper bounds on the approximation ratio achievable via strategyproof randomized rules with respect to positional scoring rules, Copeland, and Maximin.

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

In cooperative multiagent systems an alternative that maximizes the social welfare—the sum of utilities—can only be selected if each agent reports its full utility function. This may be infeasible in environments where communication is restricted. Employing a voting rule to choose an alternative greatly reduces the communication burden, but leads to a possible gap between the social welfare of the optimal alternative and the social welfare of the one that is ultimately elected. Procaccia and Rosenschein (2006) have introduced the concept of distortion to quantify this gap. In this paper, we present the notion of embeddings into voting rules: functions that receive an agent’s utility function and return the agent’s vote. We establish that very low distortion can be obtained using randomized embeddings, especially when the number of agents is large compared to the number of alternatives. We investigate our ideas in the context of three prominent voting rules with low communication costs: Plurality, Approval, and Veto. Our results arguably provide a compelling reason for employing voting in cooperative multiagent systems.

In this paper, we propose a framework to study a general class of strategic behavior in voting, which we call vote operations. We prove the following theorem: if we fix the number of alternatives, generate n votes i.i.d. according to a distribution π, and let n go to infinity, then for any ɛ> 0, with probability at least 1 − ɛ, the minimum number of operations that are needed for the strategic individual to achieve her goal falls into one of the following four categories: (1) 0, (2) Θ ( √ n), (3) Θ(n), and (4) ∞. This theorem holds for any set of vote operations, any individual vote distribution π, and any integer generalized scoring rule, which includes (but is not limited to) almost all commonly studied voting rules, e.g., approval voting, all positional scoring rules (including Borda, plurality, and veto), plurality with runoff, Bucklin, Copeland, maximin, STV, and ranked pairs. We also show that many well-studied types of strategic behavior fall under our framework, including (but not limited to) constructive/destructive manipulation, bribery, and control by adding/deleting votes, margin of victory, and minimum manipulation coalition size. Therefore, our main theorem naturally applies to these problems. Keywords: operations Computational social choice; generalized scoring rules; vote