Strategy-proof judgment aggregation.

Which rules for aggregating judgments on logically connected propositions are manipulable and which not? In this paper, we introduce a preference-free concept of non-manipulability and contrast it with a preference-theoretic concept of strategy-proofness. We characterize all non-manipulable and all strategy-proof judgment aggregation rules and prove an impossibility theorem similar to the Gibbard--Satterthwaite theorem. We also discuss weaker forms of non-manipulability and strategy-proofness. Comparing two frequently discussed aggregation rules, we show that “conclusion-based voting” is less vulnerable to manipulation than “premise-based voting”, which is strategy-proof only for “reason-oriented” individuals. Surprisingly, for “outcome-oriented” individuals, the two rules are strategically equivalent, generating identical judgments in equilibrium. Our results introduce game-theoretic considerations into judgment aggregation and have implications for debates on deliberative democracy.

On the manipulability of approval voting and related scoring rules

We characterize all preference profiles at which the approval (voting) rule is manipulable, under three extensions of preferences to sets of alternatives: by comparison of worstalternatives, best alternatives, or by comparison based on stochastic dominance. We perform a similar exercise for $k$-approval rules, where voters approve of a fixed number $k$ of alternatives. These results can be used to compare ($k$-)approval rules with respect to their manipulability. Analytical results are obtained for the case of two voters, specifically, the values of $k$ for which the $k$-approval rule is minimally manipulable -- has the smallest number of manipulable preference profiles -- under the various preference extensions are determined. For the number of voters going to infinity, an asymptotic result is that the $k$-approval rule with $k$ around half the number of alternatives is minimally manipulable among all scoring rules. Further results are obtained by simulation and indicate that $k$-approval rules may improve on the approval rule as far as manipulability is concerned.public economics ;

Manipulation under k-approval scoring rules

Under a k-approval scoring rule each agent attaches a score of one to his k most preferred alternatives and zero to the other alternatives. The rule assigns the set of alternatives with maximal score. Agents may extend preferences to sets in several ways: they may compare the worst alternatives, or the best alternatives, or use a stochastic dominance criterion. In this paper we characterize the non-manipulable profiles for each of these set comparisons. For two-agent profiles we also determine the value(s) of k for which the number of non-manipulable profiles is maximal.microeconomics ;

Approximately Strategyproof Tournament Rules: On Large Manipulating Sets and Cover-Consistence

We consider the manipulability of tournament rules, in which n teams play a round robin tournament and a winner is (possibly randomly) selected based on the outcome of all binom{n}{2} matches. Prior work defines a tournament rule to be k-SNM-? if no set of ? k teams can fix the ? binom{k}{2} matches among them to increase their probability of winning by >? and asks: for each k, what is the minimum ?(k) such that a Condorcet-consistent (i.e. always selects a Condorcet winner when one exists) k-SNM-?(k) tournament rule exists? A simple example witnesses that ?(k) ? (k-1)/(2k-1) for all k, and [Jon Schneider et al., 2017] conjectures that this is tight (and prove it is tight for k=2). Our first result refutes this conjecture: there exists a sufficiently large k such that no Condorcet-consistent tournament rule is k-SNM-1/2. Our second result leverages similar machinery to design a new tournament rule which is k-SNM-2/3 for all k (and this is the first tournament rule which is k-SNM-(<1) for all k). Our final result extends prior work, which proves that single-elimination bracket with random seeding is 2-SNM-1/3 [Jon Schneider et al., 2017], in a different direction by seeking a stronger notion of fairness than Condorcet-consistence. We design a new tournament rule, which we call Randomized-King-of-the-Hill, which is 2-SNM-1/3 and cover-consistent (the winner is an uncovered team with probability 1)

On Ehrhart Polynomials and Probability Calculations in Voting Theory

In voting theory, analyzing how frequent is an event (e.g. a voting paradox) is, under some specific but widely used assumptions, equivalent to computing the exact number of integer solutions in a system of linear constraints. Recently, some algorithms for computing this number have been proposed in social choice literature by Huang and Chua [17] and by Gehrlein ([12, 14]). The purpose of this paper is threefold. Firstly, we want to do justice to Eug`ene Ehrhart, who, more than forty years ago, discovered the theoretical foundations of the above mentioned algorithms. Secondly, we present some efficient algorithms that have been recently developed by computer scientists, independently from voting theorists. Thirdly, we illustrate the use of these algorithms by providing some original results in voting theory.voting rules, manipulability, polytopes, lattice points, algorithms.