PTAS for Minimax Approval Voting

We consider Approval Voting systems where each voter decides on a subset to candidates he/she approves. We focus on the optimization problem of finding the committee of fixed size k minimizing the maximal Hamming distance from a vote. In this paper we give a PTAS for this problem and hence resolve the open question raised by Carragianis et al. [AAAI'10]. The result is obtained by adapting the techniques developed by Li et al. [JACM'02] originally used for the less constrained Closest String problem. The technique relies on extracting information and structural properties of constant size subsets of votes.Comment: 15 pages, 1 figur

Games That End in a Bang or a Whimper

Using truels, or three-person duels, as an example, we show that how players perceive a multiple-round game will end can make a big difference in whether it ends non-cooperatively (producing a "bang") or just peters out (producing a "whimper"): 1. If the players view the number of rounds as bounded-reasonable, because the game must end in a finite number of rounds-they will shoot from the start. 2. If the players view the number of rounds as unbounded-reasonable, because the horizon of the game is infinite-then a cooperative equilibrium, involving no shooting, can also occur. Real- life examples are given of players with bounded and unbounded outlooks in truel- like situations. Unbounded outlooks encourage cooperative play, foster hope, and lead to more auspicious outcomes. These outcomes are facilitated by institutions that put no bounds on play-including reprisals-thereby allowing for a day of reckoning for those who violate established norms. Eschatological implications of the analysis, especially for thinking about the future and how it might end, are also discussed.TRUELS; BACKWARD INDUCTION; INFINITE-HORIZON GAMES; ESCHATOLOGY

Single-Peakedness and Disconnected Coalitions

Ordinally single-peaked preferences are distinguished from cardinally singlepeaked preferences, in which all players have a similar perception of distances in some one-dimensional ordering. While ordinal single-peakedness can lead to disconnected coalitions that have a "hole" in the ordering, cardinal single-peakedness precludes this possibility, based on two models of coalition formation: ¥ Fallback (FB): Players seek coalition partners by descending lower and lower in their preference rankings until a majority coalition forms. ¥ Build-Up (BU): Similar to FB, except that when nonmajority subcoalitions form, they fuse into composite players, whose positions are defined cardinally and who are treated as single players in the convergence process. FB better reflects the unconstrained, or nonmyopic, possibilities of coalition formation, whereas BU-because all subcoalition members must be included in any majority coalition that forms-restricts combinatorial possibilities and tends to produce less compact majority coalitions. The "strange bedfellows" frequently observed in legislative coalitions and military alliances suggest that even when players agree on, say, a left-right ordering, their perceptions of exactly where players stand in this ordering may differ substantially. If so, a player may be acceptable to a coalition but may not find every member in it acceptable, causing that player not to join and possibly creating a disconnected coalition.COALITION FORMATION; SINGLE-PEAKEDNESS; LEGISLATURES; ALLIANCES

Cooperative vs. Non-Cooperative Truels: Little Agreement, But Does That Matter?

It is well-known that non-cooperative and cooperative game theory may yield different solutions to games. These differences are particularly dramatic in the case of truels, or three-person duels, in which the players may fire sequentially or simultaneously, and the games may be one-round or n-round. Thus, it is never a Nash equilibrium for all players to hold their fire in any of these games, whereas in simultaneous one-round and n-round truels such cooperation, wherein everybody survives, is in both the alpha-core and beta-core. On the other hand, both cores may be empty, indicating a lack of stability, when the unique Nash equilibrium is one survivor. Conditions under which each approach seems most applicable are discussed. Although it might be desirable to subsume the two approaches within a unified framework, such unification seems unlikely since the two approaches are grounded in fundamentally different notions of stability.COOPERATIVE GAME; NON-COOPERATIVE GAME; TRUEL; NASH EQUILIBRIUM; CORE

Swap Bribery

In voting theory, bribery is a form of manipulative behavior in which an external actor (the briber) offers to pay the voters to change their votes in order to get her preferred candidate elected. We investigate a model of bribery where the price of each vote depends on the amount of change that the voter is asked to implement. Specifically, in our model the briber can change a voter's preference list by paying for a sequence of swaps of consecutive candidates. Each swap may have a different price; the price of a bribery is the sum of the prices of all swaps that it involves. We prove complexity results for this model, which we call swap bribery, for a broad class of election systems, including variants of approval and k-approval, Borda, Copeland, and maximin.Comment: 17 page

THE WAIT-AND-SEE OPTION IN ASCENDING PRICE AUCTIONS

Cake-cutting protocols aim at dividing a ``cake'' (i.e., a divisible resource) and assigning the resulting portions to several players in a way that each of the players feels to have received a ``fair'' amount of the cake. An important notion of fairness is envy-freeness: No player wishes to switch the portion of the cake received with another player's portion. Despite intense efforts in the past, it is still an open question whether there is a \emph{finite bounded} envy-free cake-cutting protocol for an arbitrary number of players, and even for four players. We introduce the notion of degree of guaranteed envy-freeness (DGEF) as a measure of how good a cake-cutting protocol can approximate the ideal of envy-freeness while keeping the protocol finite bounded (trading being disregarded). We propose a new finite bounded proportional protocol for any number n \geq 3 of players, and show that this protocol has a DGEF of 1 + \lceil (n^2)/2 \rceil. This is the currently best DGEF among known finite bounded cake-cutting protocols for an arbitrary number of players. We will make the case that improving the DGEF even further is a tough challenge, and determine, for comparison, the DGEF of selected known finite bounded cake-cutting protocols.Comment: 37 pages, 4 figure

The Dynamics of the Northern Ireland Condition

Bargaining, power, theory of moves, threats