77 research outputs found
How Hard Is It to Control an Election by Breaking Ties?
We study the computational complexity of controlling the result of an
election by breaking ties strategically. This problem is equivalent to the
problem of deciding the winner of an election under parallel universes
tie-breaking. When the chair of the election is only asked to break ties to
choose between one of the co-winners, the problem is trivially easy. However,
in multi-round elections, we prove that it can be NP-hard for the chair to
compute how to break ties to ensure a given result. Additionally, we show that
the form of the tie-breaking function can increase the opportunities for
control. Indeed, we prove that it can be NP-hard to control an election by
breaking ties even with a two-stage voting rule.Comment: Revised and expanded version including longer proofs and additional
result
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
Universal Voting Protocol Tweaks to Make Manipulation Hard
Voting is a general method for preference aggregation in multiagent settings,
but seminal results have shown that all (nondictatorial) voting protocols are
manipulable. One could try to avoid manipulation by using voting protocols
where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard computationally. A number
of recent papers study the complexity of manipulating existing protocols. This
paper is the first work to take the next step of designing new protocols that
are especially hard to manipulate. Rather than designing these new protocols
from scratch, we instead show how to tweak existing protocols to make
manipulation hard, while leaving much of the original nature of the protocol
intact. The tweak studied consists of adding one elimination preround to the
election. Surprisingly, this extremely simple and universal tweak makes typical
protocols hard to manipulate! The protocols become NP-hard, #P-hard, or
PSPACE-hard to manipulate, depending on whether the schedule of the preround is
determined before the votes are collected, after the votes are collected, or
the scheduling and the vote collecting are interleaved, respectively. We prove
general sufficient conditions on the protocols for this tweak to introduce the
hardness, and show that the most common voting protocols satisfy those
conditions. These are the first results in voting settings where manipulation
is in a higher complexity class than NP (presuming PSPACE NP)
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
Acyclic Games and Iterative Voting
We consider iterative voting models and position them within the general
framework of acyclic games and game forms. More specifically, we classify
convergence results based on the underlying assumptions on the agent scheduler
(the order of players) and the action scheduler (which better-reply is played).
Our main technical result is providing a complete picture of conditions for
acyclicity in several variations of Plurality voting. In particular, we show
that (a) under the traditional lexicographic tie-breaking, the game converges
for any order of players under a weak restriction on voters' actions; and (b)
Plurality with randomized tie-breaking is not guaranteed to converge under
arbitrary agent schedulers, but from any initial state there is \emph{some}
path of better-replies to a Nash equilibrium. We thus show a first separation
between restricted-acyclicity and weak-acyclicity of game forms, thereby
settling an open question from [Kukushkin, IJGT 2011]. In addition, we refute
another conjecture regarding strongly-acyclic voting rules.Comment: some of the results appeared in preliminary versions of this paper:
Convergence to Equilibrium of Plurality Voting, Meir et al., AAAI 2010;
Strong and Weak Acyclicity in Iterative Voting, Meir, COMSOC 201
Consistent Probabilistic Social Choice
Two fundamental axioms in social choice theory are consistency with respect
to a variable electorate and consistency with respect to components of similar
alternatives. In the context of traditional non-probabilistic social choice,
these axioms are incompatible with each other. We show that in the context of
probabilistic social choice, these axioms uniquely characterize a function
proposed by Fishburn (Rev. Econ. Stud., 51(4), 683--692, 1984). Fishburn's
function returns so-called maximal lotteries, i.e., lotteries that correspond
to optimal mixed strategies of the underlying plurality game. Maximal lotteries
are guaranteed to exist due to von Neumann's Minimax Theorem, are almost always
unique, and can be efficiently computed using linear programming
Computational aspects of voting: a literature survey
Preference aggregation is a topic of study in different fields such as philosophy, mathematics, economics and political science. Recently, computational aspects of preference aggregation have gained especial attention and “computational politics” has emerged as a marked line of research in computer science with a clear concentration on voting protocols. The field of voting systems, rooted in social choice theory, has expanded notably in both depth and breadth in the last few decades. A significant amount of this growth comes from studies concerning the computational aspects of voting systems. This thesis comprehensively reviews the work on voting systems (from a computing perspective) by listing, classifying and comparing the results obtained by different researchers in the field. This survey covers a wide range of new and historical results yet provides a profound commentary on related work as individual studies and in relation to other related work and to the field in general. The deliverables serve as an overview where students and novice researchers in the field can start and also as a depository that can be referred to when searching for specific results. A comprehensive literature survey of the computational aspects of voting is a task that has not been undertaken yet and is initially realized here. Part of this research was dedicated to creating a web-depository that contains material and references related to the topic based on the survey. The purpose was to create a dynamic version of the survey that can be updated with latest findings and as an online practical reference
- …