634 research outputs found
Detecting Possible Manipulators in Elections
Manipulation is a problem of fundamental importance in the context of voting
in which the voters exercise their votes strategically instead of voting
honestly to prevent selection of an alternative that is less preferred. The
Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem shows that there is no strategy-proof voting rule
that simultaneously satisfies certain combinations of desirable properties.
Researchers have attempted to get around the impossibility results in several
ways such as domain restriction and computational hardness of manipulation.
However these approaches have been shown to have limitations. Since prevention
of manipulation seems to be elusive, an interesting research direction
therefore is detection of manipulation. Motivated by this, we initiate the
study of detection of possible manipulators in an election.
We formulate two pertinent computational problems - Coalitional Possible
Manipulators (CPM) and Coalitional Possible Manipulators given Winner (CPMW),
where a suspect group of voters is provided as input to compute whether they
can be a potential coalition of possible manipulators. In the absence of any
suspect group, we formulate two more computational problems namely Coalitional
Possible Manipulators Search (CPMS), and Coalitional Possible Manipulators
Search given Winner (CPMSW). We provide polynomial time algorithms for these
problems, for several popular voting rules. For a few other voting rules, we
show that these problems are in NP-complete. We observe that detecting
manipulation maybe easy even when manipulation is hard, as seen for example, in
the case of the Borda voting rule.Comment: Accepted in AAMAS 201
Schulze and Ranked-Pairs Voting are Fixed-Parameter Tractable to Bribe, Manipulate, and Control
Schulze and ranked-pairs elections have received much attention recently, and
the former has quickly become a quite widely used election system. For many
cases these systems have been proven resistant to bribery, control, or
manipulation, with ranked pairs being particularly praised for being NP-hard
for all three of those. Nonetheless, the present paper shows that with respect
to the number of candidates, Schulze and ranked-pairs elections are
fixed-parameter tractable to bribe, control, and manipulate: we obtain uniform,
polynomial-time algorithms whose degree does not depend on the number of
candidates. We also provide such algorithms for some weighted variants of these
problems
A Smooth Transition from Powerlessness to Absolute Power
We study the phase transition of the coalitional manipulation problem for
generalized scoring rules. Previously it has been shown that, under some
conditions on the distribution of votes, if the number of manipulators is
, where is the number of voters, then the probability that a
random profile is manipulable by the coalition goes to zero as the number of
voters goes to infinity, whereas if the number of manipulators is
, then the probability that a random profile is manipulable
goes to one. Here we consider the critical window, where a coalition has size
, and we show that as goes from zero to infinity, the limiting
probability that a random profile is manipulable goes from zero to one in a
smooth fashion, i.e., there is a smooth phase transition between the two
regimes. This result analytically validates recent empirical results, and
suggests that deciding the coalitional manipulation problem may be of limited
computational hardness in practice.Comment: 22 pages; v2 contains minor changes and corrections; v3 contains
minor changes after comments of reviewer
The Complexity of Online Manipulation of Sequential Elections
Most work on manipulation assumes that all preferences are known to the
manipulators. However, in many settings elections are open and sequential, and
manipulators may know the already cast votes but may not know the future votes.
We introduce a framework, in which manipulators can see the past votes but not
the future ones, to model online coalitional manipulation of sequential
elections, and we show that in this setting manipulation can be extremely
complex even for election systems with simple winner problems. Yet we also show
that for some of the most important election systems such manipulation is
simple in certain settings. This suggests that when using sequential voting,
one should pay great attention to the details of the setting in choosing one's
voting rule. Among the highlights of our classifications are: We show that,
depending on the size of the manipulative coalition, the online manipulation
problem can be complete for each level of the polynomial hierarchy or even for
PSPACE. We obtain the most dramatic contrast to date between the
nonunique-winner and unique-winner models: Online weighted manipulation for
plurality is in P in the nonunique-winner model, yet is coNP-hard (constructive
case) and NP-hard (destructive case) in the unique-winner model. And we obtain
what to the best of our knowledge are the first P^NP[1]-completeness and
P^NP-completeness results in the field of computational social choice, in
particular proving such completeness for, respectively, the complexity of
3-candidate and 4-candidate (and unlimited-candidate) online weighted coalition
manipulation of veto elections.Comment: 24 page
- …