Results 1  10
of
34
Determining Possible and Necessary Winners under Common Voting Rules Given Partial Orders
"... Usually a voting rule or correspondence requires agents to give their preferences as linear orders. However, in some cases it is impractical for an agent to give a linear order over all the alternatives. It has been suggested to let agents submit partial orders instead. Then, given a profile of part ..."
Abstract

Cited by 63 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Usually a voting rule or correspondence requires agents to give their preferences as linear orders. However, in some cases it is impractical for an agent to give a linear order over all the alternatives. It has been suggested to let agents submit partial orders instead. Then, given a profile of partial orders and a candidate c, two important questions arise: first, is c guaranteed to win, and second, is it still possible for c to win? These are the necessary winner and possible winner problems, respectively. We consider the setting where the number of alternatives is unbounded and the votes are unweighted. We prove that for Copeland, maximin, Bucklin, and ranked pairs, the possible winner problem is NPcomplete; also, we give a sufficient condition on scoring rules for the possible winner problem to be NPcomplete (Borda satisfies this condition). We also prove that for Copeland and ranked pairs, the necessary winner problem is coNPcomplete. All the hardness results hold even when the number of undetermined pairs in each vote is no more than a constant. We also present polynomialtime algorithms for the necessary winner problem for scoring rules, maximin, and Bucklin.
Compilation complexity of common voting rules
, 2010
"... In computational social choice, one important problem is to take the votes of a subelectorate (subset of the voters), and summarize them using a small number of bits. This needs to be done in such a way that, if all that we know is the summary, as well as the votes of voters outside the subelectorat ..."
Abstract

Cited by 58 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In computational social choice, one important problem is to take the votes of a subelectorate (subset of the voters), and summarize them using a small number of bits. This needs to be done in such a way that, if all that we know is the summary, as well as the votes of voters outside the subelectorate, we can conclude which of the m alternatives wins. This corresponds to the notion of compilation complexity, the minimum number of bits required to summarize the votes for a particular rule, which was introduced by Chevaleyre et al. [IJCAI09]. We study three different types of compilation complexity. The first, studied by Chevaleyre et al., depends on the size of the subelectorate but not on the size of the complement (the voters outside the subelectorate). The second depends on the size of the complement but not on the size of the subelectorate. The third depends on both. We first investigate the relations among the three types of compilation complexity. Then, we give upper and lower bounds on all three types of compilation complexity for the most prominent voting rules. We show that for lapproval (when l ≤ m/2), Borda, and Bucklin, the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight, up to a multiplicative constant; for lapproval (when l> m/2), plurality with runoff, all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on unweighted majority graphs (including Copeland and voting trees), and all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on the order of pairwise elections (including ranked pairs and maximin), the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight up to a multiplicative constant when the sizes of the subelectorate and its complement are both larger than m 1+ǫ for some ǫ> 0.
AI’s war on manipulation: Are we winning?
 AI MAGAZINE
"... 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. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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.
Reflections on multivariate algorithmics and problem parameterization
 PROC. 27TH STACS
, 2010
"... Research on parameterized algorithmics for NPhard problems has steadily grown over the last years. We survey and discuss how parameterized complexity analysis naturally develops into the field of multivariate algorithmics. Correspondingly, we describe how to perform a systematic investigation and e ..."
Abstract

Cited by 36 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Research on parameterized algorithmics for NPhard problems has steadily grown over the last years. We survey and discuss how parameterized complexity analysis naturally develops into the field of multivariate algorithmics. Correspondingly, we describe how to perform a systematic investigation and exploitation of the “parameter space” of computationally hard problems.
Multimode Control Attacks on 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 complexi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 34 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 complexitytheoretic 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 polynomialtime multiprong attack algorithms we prove that for various election systems even such concerted, flexible attacks can be perfectly planned in deterministic polynomial time. 1
Unweighted Coalitional Manipulation Under the Borda Rule Is NPHard
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTYSECOND INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
"... The Borda voting rule is a positional scoring rule where, for m candidates, for every vote the first candidate receives m − 1 points, the second m − 2 points and so on. A Borda winner is a candidate with highest total score. It has been a prominent open problem to determine the computational complex ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Borda voting rule is a positional scoring rule where, for m candidates, for every vote the first candidate receives m − 1 points, the second m − 2 points and so on. A Borda winner is a candidate with highest total score. It has been a prominent open problem to determine the computational complexity of UNWEIGHTED COALITIONAL MANIPULATION UNDER BORDA: Can one add a certain number of additional votes (called manipulators) to an election such that a distinguished candidate becomes a winner? We settle this open problem by showing NPhardness even for two manipulators and three input votes. Moreover, we discuss extensions and limitations of this hardness result.
A Maximum Likelihood Approach towards Aggregating Partial Orders
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTYSECOND INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
"... In many of the possible applications as well as the theoretical models of computational social choice, the agents ’ preferences are represented as partial orders. In this paper, we extend the maximum likelihood approach for defining “optimal ” voting rules to this setting. We consider distributions ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In many of the possible applications as well as the theoretical models of computational social choice, the agents ’ preferences are represented as partial orders. In this paper, we extend the maximum likelihood approach for defining “optimal ” voting rules to this setting. We consider distributions in which the pairwise comparisons/incomparabilities between alternatives are drawn i.i.d. We call such models pairwiseindependent models and show that they correspond to a class of voting rules that we call pairwise scoring rules. This generalizes rules such as Kemeny and Borda. Moreover, we show that Borda is the only pairwise scoring rule that satisfies neutrality, when the outcome space is the set of all alternatives. We then study which voting rules defined for linear orders can be extended to partial orders via our MLE model. We show that any weakly neutral outcome scoring rule (including any ranking/candidate scoring rule) based on the weighted majority graph can be represented as the MLE of a weakly neutral pairwiseindependent model. Therefore, all such rules admit natural extensions to profiles of partial orders. Finally, we propose a specific MLE model πk for generating a set of k winning alternatives, and study the computational complexity of winner determination for the MLE of πk.
Towards a dichotomy of finding possible winners in elections based on scoring rules
 In Proc. 34th MFCS, volume 5734 of LNCS
, 2009
"... Abstract. To make a joint decision, agents (or voters) are often required to provide their preferences as linear orders. To determine a winner, the given linear orders can be aggregated according to a voting protocol. However, in realistic settings, the voters may often only provide partial orders. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. To make a joint decision, agents (or voters) are often required to provide their preferences as linear orders. To determine a winner, the given linear orders can be aggregated according to a voting protocol. However, in realistic settings, the voters may often only provide partial orders. This directly leads to the POSSIBLE WINNER problem that asks, given a set of partial votes, if a distinguished candidate can still become a winner. In this work, we consider the computational complexity of POSSIBLE WINNER for the broad class of voting protocols defined by scoring rules. A scoring rule provides a score value for every position which a candidate can have in a linear order. Prominent examples include plurality, kapproval, and Borda. Generalizing previous NPhardness results for some special cases and providing new manyone reductions, we settle the computational complexity for all but one scoring rule. More precisely, for an unbounded number of candidates and unweighted voters, we show that POSSIBLE WINNER is NPcomplete for all pure scoring rules except plurality, veto, and the scoring rule defined by the scoring vector (2,1,..., 1, 0), while it is solvable in polynomial time for plurality and veto. 1
On the computation of fully proportional representation
 JOURNAL OF AI RESEARCH
, 2013
"... We investigate two systems of fully proportional representation suggested by Chamberlin & Courant and Monroe. Both systems assign a representative to each voter so that the “sum of misrepresentations” is minimized. The winner determination problem for both systems is known to be NPhard, hence t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate two systems of fully proportional representation suggested by Chamberlin & Courant and Monroe. Both systems assign a representative to each voter so that the “sum of misrepresentations” is minimized. The winner determination problem for both systems is known to be NPhard, hence this work aims at investigating whether there are variants of the proposed rules and/or specific electorates for which these problems can be solved efficiently. As a variation of these rules, instead of minimizing the sum of misrepresentations, we considered minimizing the maximalmisrepresentationintroducingeffectively two new rules. In the general case these “minimax ” versions of classical rules appeared to be still NPhard. We investigated the parameterized complexity of winner determination of the two classical and two new rules with respect to several parameters. Here we have a mixture of positive and negative results: e.g., we proved fixedparameter tractability for the parameter the number of candidates but fixedparameter intractability for the number of winners. For singlepeaked electorates our results are overwhelmingly positive: we provide polynomialtime algorithms for most of the considered problems. The only rule that remains NPhard for singlepeaked electorates is the classical Monroe rule. 1.
Probabilistic possible winner determination
 In Proc. of 24th AAAI
, 2010
"... We study the computational complexity of the counting version of the POSSIBLEWINNER problem for elections. In the POSSIBLEWINNER problem we are given a profile of voters, each with a partial preference order, and ask if there are linear extensions of the votes such that a designated candidate wins ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study the computational complexity of the counting version of the POSSIBLEWINNER problem for elections. In the POSSIBLEWINNER problem we are given a profile of voters, each with a partial preference order, and ask if there are linear extensions of the votes such that a designated candidate wins. We also analyze a special case of POSSIBLEWINNER, the MANIPULATION problem. We provide polynomialtime algorithms for counting manipulations in a class of scoring protocols and in several other voting rules. We show #Phardness of the counting variant of POSSIBLEWINNER for plurality and veto and give a simple yet general and practically useful randomized algorithm for a variant of POSSIBLEWINNER for all voting rules for which a winner can be computed in polynomial time.