25,830 research outputs found
Parliamentary Voting Procedures: Agenda Control, Manipulation, and Uncertainty
We study computational problems for two popular parliamentary voting
procedures: the amendment procedure and the successive procedure. While finding
successful manipulations or agenda controls is tractable for both procedures,
our real-world experimental results indicate that most elections cannot be
manipulated by a few voters and agenda control is typically impossible. If the
voter preferences are incomplete, then finding which alternatives can possibly
win is NP-hard for both procedures. Whilst deciding if an alternative
necessarily wins is coNP-hard for the amendment procedure, it is
polynomial-time solvable for the successive one
Dominating Manipulations in Voting with Partial Information
We consider manipulation problems when the manipulator only has partial
information about the votes of the nonmanipulators. Such partial information is
described by an information set, which is the set of profiles of the
nonmanipulators that are indistinguishable to the manipulator. Given such an
information set, a dominating manipulation is a non-truthful vote that the
manipulator can cast which makes the winner at least as preferable (and
sometimes more preferable) as the winner when the manipulator votes truthfully.
When the manipulator has full information, computing whether or not there
exists a dominating manipulation is in P for many common voting rules (by known
results). We show that when the manipulator has no information, there is no
dominating manipulation for many common voting rules. When the manipulator's
information is represented by partial orders and only a small portion of the
preferences are unknown, computing a dominating manipulation is NP-hard for
many common voting rules. Our results thus throw light on whether we can
prevent strategic behavior by limiting information about the votes of other
voters.Comment: 7 pages by arxiv pdflatex, 1 figure. The 6-page version has the same
content and will be published in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI
Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-11
Towards a Dichotomy for the Possible Winner Problem in Elections Based on Scoring Rules
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, whether
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, k-approval, and Borda. Generalizing previous NP-hardness
results for some special cases, 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 NP-complete 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.Comment: minor changes and updates; accepted for publication in JCSS, online
version available
Possible Winners in Noisy Elections
We consider the problem of predicting winners in elections, for the case
where we are given complete knowledge about all possible candidates, all
possible voters (together with their preferences), but where it is uncertain
either which candidates exactly register for the election or which voters cast
their votes. Under reasonable assumptions, our problems reduce to counting
variants of election control problems. We either give polynomial-time
algorithms or prove #P-completeness results for counting variants of control by
adding/deleting candidates/voters for Plurality, k-Approval, Approval,
Condorcet, and Maximin voting rules. We consider both the general case, where
voters' preferences are unrestricted, and the case where voters' preferences
are single-peaked.Comment: 34 page
- …