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

Affecting Policy by Manipulating Prediction Markets: Experimental Evidence

Documented results indicate prediction markets effectively aggregate information and form accurate predictions. This has led to a proliferation of markets predicting everything from the results of elections to a company’s sales to movie box office receipts. Recent research suggests prediction markets are robust to manipulation attacks and resulting market outcomes improve forecast accuracy. However, we present evidence from the lab indicating that well funded, single minded manipulators can in fact destroy a prediction market’s ability to aggregate information. Our results clearly indicate that the usefulness of prediction markets as inputs to decision making may be limited.Information Aggregation, Prediction Markets, Manipulation

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

Technology, autonomy, and manipulation

Since 2016, when the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal began to emerge, public concern has grown around the threat of “online manipulation”. While these worries are familiar to privacy researchers, this paper aims to make them more salient to policymakers — first, by defining “online manipulation”, thus enabling identification of manipulative practices; and second, by drawing attention to the specific harms online manipulation threatens. We argue that online manipulation is the use of information technology to covertly influence another person’s decision-making, by targeting and exploiting their decision-making vulnerabilities. Engaging in such practices can harm individuals by diminishing their economic interests, but its deeper, more insidious harm is its challenge to individual autonomy. We explore this autonomy harm, emphasising its implications for both individuals and society, and we briefly outline some strategies for combating online manipulation and strengthening autonomy in an increasingly digital world

Election-Attack Complexity for More Natural Models

Elections are arguably the best way that a group of agents with preferences over a set of choices can reach a decision. This can include political domains, as well as multiagent systems in artificial-intelligence settings. It is well-known that every reasonable election system is manipulable, but determining whether such a manipulation exists may be computationally infeasible. We build on an exciting line of research that considers the complexity of election-attack problems, which include voters misrepresenting their preferences (manipulation) and attacks on the structure of the election itself (control). We must properly model such attacks and the preferences of the electorate to give us insight into the difficulty of election attacks in natural settings. This includes models for how the voters can state their preferences, their structure, and new models for the election attack itself. We study several different natural models on the structure of the voters. In the computational study of election attacks it is generally assumed that voters strictly rank all of the candidates from most to least preferred. We consider the very natural model where voters are able to cast votes with ties, and the model where they additionally have a single-peaked structure. Specifically, we explore how voters with varying amounts of ties and structure in their preferences affect the computational complexity of different election attacks and the complexity of determining whether a given electorate is single-peaked. For the representation of the voters, we consider how representing the voters succinctly affects the complexity of election attacks and discuss how approaches for the nonsuccinct case can be adapted. Control and manipulation are two of the most commonly studied election-attack problems. We introduce a model of electoral control in the setting where some of the voters act strategically (i.e., are manipulators), and consider both the case where the agent controlling the election and the manipulators share a goal, and the case where they have competing goals. The computational study of election-attack problems allows us to better understand how different election systems compare to one another, and it is important to study these problems for natural settings, as this thesis does

Organized Behavior Classification of Tweet Sets using Supervised Learning Methods

During the 2016 US elections Twitter experienced unprecedented levels of propaganda and fake news through the collaboration of bots and hired persons, the ramifications of which are still being debated. This work proposes an approach to identify the presence of organized behavior in tweets. The Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Logistic Regression algorithms are each used to train a model with a data set of 850 records consisting of 299 features extracted from tweets gathered during the 2016 US presidential election. The features represent user and temporal synchronization characteristics to capture coordinated behavior. These models are trained to classify tweet sets among the categories: organic vs organized, political vs non-political, and pro-Trump vs pro-Hillary vs neither. The random forest algorithm performs better with greater than 95% average accuracy and f-measure scores for each category. The most valuable features for classification are identified as user based features, with media use and marking tweets as favorite to be the most dominant.Comment: 51 pages, 5 figure

Seminar Users in the Arabic Twitter Sphere

We introduce the notion of "seminar users", who are social media users engaged in propaganda in support of a political entity. We develop a framework that can identify such users with 84.4% precision and 76.1% recall. While our dataset is from the Arab region, omitting language-specific features has only a minor impact on classification performance, and thus, our approach could work for detecting seminar users in other parts of the world and in other languages. We further explored a controversial political topic to observe the prevalence and potential potency of such users. In our case study, we found that 25% of the users engaged in the topic are in fact seminar users and their tweets make nearly a third of the on-topic tweets. Moreover, they are often successful in affecting mainstream discourse with coordinated hashtag campaigns.Comment: to appear in SocInfo 201