4,305 research outputs found
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
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
Reinstating Combinatorial Protections for Manipulation and Bribery in Single-Peaked and Nearly Single-Peaked Electorates
Understanding when and how computational complexity can be used to protect
elections against different manipulative actions has been a highly active
research area over the past two decades. A recent body of work, however, has
shown that many of the NP-hardness shields, previously obtained, vanish when
the electorate has single-peaked or nearly single-peaked preferences. In light
of these results, we investigate whether it is possible to reimpose NP-hardness
shields for such electorates by allowing the voters to specify partial
preferences instead of insisting they cast complete ballots. In particular, we
show that in single-peaked and nearly single-peaked electorates, if voters are
allowed to submit top-truncated ballots, then the complexity of manipulation
and bribery for many voting rules increases from being in P to being
NP-complete.Comment: 28 pages; A shorter version of this paper will appear at the 30th
AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-16
Computational Aspects of Nearly Single-Peaked Electorates
Manipulation, bribery, and control are well-studied ways of changing the
outcome of an election. Many voting rules are, in the general case,
computationally resistant to some of these manipulative actions. However when
restricted to single-peaked electorates, these rules suddenly become easy to
manipulate. Recently, Faliszewski, Hemaspaandra, and Hemaspaandra studied the
computational complexity of strategic behavior in nearly single-peaked
electorates. These are electorates that are not single-peaked but close to it
according to some distance measure.
In this paper we introduce several new distance measures regarding
single-peakedness. We prove that determining whether a given profile is nearly
single-peaked is NP-complete in many cases. For one case we present a
polynomial-time algorithm. In case the single-peaked axis is given, we show
that determining the distance is always possible in polynomial time.
Furthermore, we explore the relations between the new notions introduced in
this paper and existing notions from the literature.Comment: Published in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR).
A short version of this paper appeared in the proceedings of the
Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2013). An
even earlier version appeared in the proceedings of the Fourth International
Workshop on Computational Social Choice 2012 (COMSOC 2012
- …