61,536 research outputs found
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
Complexity of Manipulative Actions When Voting with Ties
Most of the computational study of election problems has assumed that each
voter's preferences are, or should be extended to, a total order. However in
practice voters may have preferences with ties. We study the complexity of
manipulative actions on elections where voters can have ties, extending the
definitions of the election systems (when necessary) to handle voters with
ties. We show that for natural election systems allowing ties can both increase
and decrease the complexity of manipulation and bribery, and we state a general
result on the effect of voters with ties on the complexity of control.Comment: A version of this paper will appear in ADT-201
How many candidates are needed to make elections hard to manipulate?
In multiagent settings where the agents have different preferences,
preference aggregation is a central issue. Voting is a general method for
preference aggregation, but seminal results have shown that all general voting
protocols are manipulable. One could try to avoid manipulation by using voting
protocols where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard computationally.
The complexity of manipulating realistic elections where the number of
candidates is a small constant was recently studied (Conitzer 2002), but the
emphasis was on the question of whether or not a protocol becomes hard to
manipulate for some constant number of candidates. That work, in many cases,
left open the question: How many candidates are needed to make elections hard
to manipulate? This is a crucial question when comparing the relative
manipulability of different voting protocols. In this paper we answer that
question for the voting protocols of the earlier study: plurality, Borda, STV,
Copeland, maximin, regular cup, and randomized cup. We also answer that
question for two voting protocols for which no results on the complexity of
manipulation have been derived before: veto and plurality with runoff. It turns
out that the voting protocols under study become hard to manipulate at 3
candidates, 4 candidates, 7 candidates, or never
- …