Manipulating Districts to Win Elections: Fine-Grained Complexity

Gerrymandering is a practice of manipulating district boundaries and locations in order to achieve a political advantage for a particular party. Lewenberg, Lev, and Rosenschein [AAMAS 2017] initiated the algorithmic study of a geographically-based manipulation problem, where voters must vote at the ballot box closest to them. In this variant of gerrymandering, for a given set of possible locations of ballot boxes and known political preferences of $n$ voters, the task is to identify locations for $k$ boxes out of $m$ possible locations to guarantee victory of a certain party in at least $l$ districts. Here integers $k$ and $l$ are some selected parameter. It is known that the problem is NP-complete already for 4 political parties and prior to our work only heuristic algorithms for this problem were developed. We initiate the rigorous study of the gerrymandering problem from the perspectives of parameterized and fine-grained complexity and provide asymptotically matching lower and upper bounds on its computational complexity. We prove that the problem is W[1]-hard parameterized by $k+n$ and that it does not admit an $f(n,k)\cdot m^{o(\sqrt{k})}$ algorithm for any function $f$ of $k$ and $n$ only, unless Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) fails. Our lower bounds hold already for $2$ parties. On the other hand, we give an algorithm that solves the problem for a constant number of parties in time $(m+n)^{O(\sqrt{k})}$.Comment: Presented at AAAI-2

Resolving the Complexity of Some Fundamental Problems in Computational Social Choice

This thesis is in the area called computational social choice which is an intersection area of algorithms and social choice theory.Comment: Ph.D. Thesi

Complexity of manipulation with partial information in Voting

The Coalitional Manipulation problem has been studied extensively in the literature for many voting rules. However, most studies have focused on the complete information setting, wherein the manipulators know the votes of the non-manipulators. While this assumption is reasonable for purposes of showing intractability, it is unrealistic for algorithmic considerations. In most real-world scenarios, it is impractical for the manipulators to have accurate knowledge of all the other votes. In this paper, we investigate manipulation with incomplete information. In our framework, the manipulators know a partial order for each voter that is consistent with the true preference of that voter. In this setting, we formulate three natural computational notions of manipulation, namely weak, opportunistic, and strong manipulation. We say that an extension of a partial order is if there exists a manipulative vote for that extension. 1. Weak Manipulation (WM): the manipulators seek to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in at least one extension of the partial votes of the non-manipulators. 2. Opportunistic Manipulation (OM): the manipulators seek to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in every viable extension of the partial votes of the non-manipulators. 3. Strong Manipulation (SM): the manipulators seek to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in every extension of the partial votes of the non-manipulators. We consider several scenarios for which the traditional manipulation problems are easy (for instance, Borda with a single manipulator). For many of them, the corresponding manipulative questions that we propose turn out to be computationally intractable. Our hardness results often hold even when very little information is missing, or in other words, even when the instances are quite close to the complete information setting.by Palash Dey and Neeldhara Misr

Complexity of manipulation with partial information in voting

The Coalitional Manipulation problem has been studied extensively in the literature for many voting rules. However, most studies have focused on the complete information setting, wherein the manipulators know the votes of the non-manipulators. While this assumption is reasonable for purposes of showing intractability, it is unrealistic for algorithmic considerations. In most real-world scenarios, it is impractical to assume that the manipulators to have accurate knowledge of all the other votes. In this work, we investigate manipulation with incomplete information. In our framework, the manipulators know a partial order for each voter that is consistent with the true preference of that voter. In this setting, we formulate three natural computational notions of manipulation, namely weak, opportunistic, and strong manipulation. We say that an extension of a partial order is viable if there exists a manipulative vote for that extension. We propose the following notions of manipulation when manipulators have incomplete information about the votes of other voters. 1. Weak Manipulation: the manipulators seek to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in at least one extension of the partial votes of the non-manipulators. 2. Opportunistic Manipulation: the manipulators seek to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in every viable extension of the partial votes of the non-manipulators. 3. Strong Manipulation: the manipulators seek to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in every extension of the partial votes of the non-manipulators. We consider several scenarios for which the traditional manipulation problems are easy (for instance, Borda with a single manipulator). For many of them, the corresponding manipulative questions that we propose turn out to be computationally intractable. Our hardness results often hold even when very little information is missing, or in other words, even when the instances are very close to the complete information setting. Our results show that the impact of paucity of information on the computational complexity of manipulation crucially depends on the notion of manipulation under consideration. Our overall conclusion is that computational hardness continues to be a valid obstruction to manipulation, in the context of a more realistic model.by Palash Deya, Neeldhara Misra and Y.Narahari