Results 1  10
of
43
Determining possible and necessary winners under common voting rules given partial orders.
 In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI),
, 2008
"... Abstract Usually a voting rule requires agents to give their preferences as linear orders. However, in some cases it is impractical for an agent to give a linear order over all the alternatives. It has been suggested to let agents submit partial orders instead. Then, given a voting rule, a profile ..."
Abstract

Cited by 63 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract Usually a voting rule requires agents to give their preferences as linear orders. However, in some cases it is impractical for an agent to give a linear order over all the alternatives. It has been suggested to let agents submit partial orders instead. Then, given a voting rule, a profile of partial orders, and an alternative (candidate) c, two important questions arise: first, is it still possible for c to win, and second, is c guaranteed to win? These are the possible winner and necessary winner problems, respectively. Each of these two problems is further divided into two subproblems: determining whether c is a unique winner (that is, c is the only winner), or determining whether c is a cowinner (that is, c is in the set of winners). We consider the setting where the number of alternatives is unbounded and the votes are unweighted. We completely characterize the complexity of possible/necessary winner problems for the following common voting rules: a class of positional scoring rules (including Borda), Copeland, maximin, Bucklin, ranked pairs, voting trees, and plurality with runoff.
Compilation complexity of common voting rules
, 2010
"... In computational social choice, one important problem is to take the votes of a subelectorate (subset of the voters), and summarize them using a small number of bits. This needs to be done in such a way that, if all that we know is the summary, as well as the votes of voters outside the subelectorat ..."
Abstract

Cited by 58 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In computational social choice, one important problem is to take the votes of a subelectorate (subset of the voters), and summarize them using a small number of bits. This needs to be done in such a way that, if all that we know is the summary, as well as the votes of voters outside the subelectorate, we can conclude which of the m alternatives wins. This corresponds to the notion of compilation complexity, the minimum number of bits required to summarize the votes for a particular rule, which was introduced by Chevaleyre et al. [IJCAI09]. We study three different types of compilation complexity. The first, studied by Chevaleyre et al., depends on the size of the subelectorate but not on the size of the complement (the voters outside the subelectorate). The second depends on the size of the complement but not on the size of the subelectorate. The third depends on both. We first investigate the relations among the three types of compilation complexity. Then, we give upper and lower bounds on all three types of compilation complexity for the most prominent voting rules. We show that for lapproval (when l ≤ m/2), Borda, and Bucklin, the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight, up to a multiplicative constant; for lapproval (when l> m/2), plurality with runoff, all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on unweighted majority graphs (including Copeland and voting trees), and all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on the order of pairwise elections (including ranked pairs and maximin), the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight up to a multiplicative constant when the sizes of the subelectorate and its complement are both larger than m 1+ǫ for some ǫ> 0.
AI’s war on manipulation: Are we winning?
 AI MAGAZINE
"... We provide an overview of more than two decades of work, mostly in AI, that studies computational complexity as a barrier against manipulation in elections. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 57 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We provide an overview of more than two decades of work, mostly in AI, that studies computational complexity as a barrier against manipulation in elections.
A Multivariate Complexity Analysis of Determining Possible Winners Given Incomplete Votes
"... The POSSIBLE WINNER problem asks whether some distinguished candidate may become the winner of an election when the given incomplete votes are extended into complete ones in a favorable way. POSSIBLE WINNER is NPcomplete for common voting rules such as Borda, many other positional scoring rules, Bu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The POSSIBLE WINNER problem asks whether some distinguished candidate may become the winner of an election when the given incomplete votes are extended into complete ones in a favorable way. POSSIBLE WINNER is NPcomplete for common voting rules such as Borda, many other positional scoring rules, Bucklin, Copeland etc. We investigate how three different parameterizations influence the computational complexity of POSSIBLE WINNER for a number of voting rules. We show fixedparameter tractability results with respect to the parameter “number of candidates ” but intractability results with respect to the parameter “number of votes”. Finally, we derive fixedparameter tractability results with respect to the parameter “total number of undetermined candidate pairs ” and identify an interesting polynomialtime solvable special case for Borda. 1
Anonymityproof voting rules
 In Computational Social Systems and the Internet #07271, Dagstuhl Workshop
, 2007
"... In open, anonymous environments such as the Internet, mechanism design must be extended to take new types of manipulation into account—especially, the possibility that an agent participates in the mechanism multiple times. General social choice or voting settings lie at the heart of mechanism design ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In open, anonymous environments such as the Internet, mechanism design must be extended to take new types of manipulation into account—especially, the possibility that an agent participates in the mechanism multiple times. General social choice or voting settings lie at the heart of mechanism design and provide a natural starting point. A (randomized, anonymous) voting rule maps any multiset of total orders of (aka. votes over) a fixed set of alternatives to a probability distribution over these alternatives. A voting rule f is neutral if it treats all alternatives symmetrically. It satisfies participation if no voter ever benefits from not casting her vote. It is falsenameproof if no voter ever benefits from casting additional (potentially different) votes. It is anonymityproof if it satisfies participation and it is falsenameproof. We show that the class of anonymityproof neutral voting rules consists exactly of the rules of the following form.
A Maximum Likelihood Approach towards Aggregating Partial Orders
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTYSECOND INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
"... In many of the possible applications as well as the theoretical models of computational social choice, the agents ’ preferences are represented as partial orders. In this paper, we extend the maximum likelihood approach for defining “optimal ” voting rules to this setting. We consider distributions ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In many of the possible applications as well as the theoretical models of computational social choice, the agents ’ preferences are represented as partial orders. In this paper, we extend the maximum likelihood approach for defining “optimal ” voting rules to this setting. We consider distributions in which the pairwise comparisons/incomparabilities between alternatives are drawn i.i.d. We call such models pairwiseindependent models and show that they correspond to a class of voting rules that we call pairwise scoring rules. This generalizes rules such as Kemeny and Borda. Moreover, we show that Borda is the only pairwise scoring rule that satisfies neutrality, when the outcome space is the set of all alternatives. We then study which voting rules defined for linear orders can be extended to partial orders via our MLE model. We show that any weakly neutral outcome scoring rule (including any ranking/candidate scoring rule) based on the weighted majority graph can be represented as the MLE of a weakly neutral pairwiseindependent model. Therefore, all such rules admit natural extensions to profiles of partial orders. Finally, we propose a specific MLE model πk for generating a set of k winning alternatives, and study the computational complexity of winner determination for the MLE of πk.
Towards a dichotomy of finding possible winners in elections based on scoring rules
 In Proc. 34th MFCS, volume 5734 of LNCS
, 2009
"... Abstract. To make a joint decision, agents (or voters) are often required to provide their preferences as linear orders. To determine a winner, the given linear orders can be aggregated according to a voting protocol. However, in realistic settings, the voters may often only provide partial orders. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. To make a joint decision, agents (or voters) are often required to provide their preferences as linear orders. To determine a winner, the given linear orders can be aggregated according to a voting protocol. However, in realistic settings, the voters may often only provide partial orders. This directly leads to the POSSIBLE WINNER problem that asks, given a set of partial votes, if a distinguished candidate can still become a winner. In this work, we consider the computational complexity of POSSIBLE WINNER for the broad class of voting protocols defined by scoring rules. A scoring rule provides a score value for every position which a candidate can have in a linear order. Prominent examples include plurality, kapproval, and Borda. Generalizing previous NPhardness results for some special cases and providing new manyone reductions, we settle the computational complexity for all but one scoring rule. More precisely, for an unbounded number of candidates and unweighted voters, we show that POSSIBLE WINNER is NPcomplete for all pure scoring rules except plurality, veto, and the scoring rule defined by the scoring vector (2,1,..., 1, 0), while it is solvable in polynomial time for plurality and veto. 1
Practical voting rules with partial information
 AUTON AGENT MULTIAGENT SYST
, 2010
"... Voting is an essential mechanism that allows multiple agents to reach a joint decision. The joint decision, representing a function over the preferences of all agents, is the winner among all possible (candidate) decisions. To compute the winning candidate, previous work has typically assumed that ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Voting is an essential mechanism that allows multiple agents to reach a joint decision. The joint decision, representing a function over the preferences of all agents, is the winner among all possible (candidate) decisions. To compute the winning candidate, previous work has typically assumed that voters send their complete set of preferences for computation, and in fact this has been shown to be required in the worst case. However, in practice, it may be infeasible for all agents to send a complete set of preferences due to communication limitations and willingness to keep as much information private as possible. The goal of this paper is to empirically evaluate algorithms to reduce communication on various sets of experiments. Accordingly, we propose an iterative algorithm that allows the agents to send only part of their preferences, incrementally. Experiments with simulated and realworld data show that this algorithm results in an average of 35 % savings in communications, while guaranteeing that the actual winning candidate is revealed. A second algorithm applies a greedy heuristic to save up to 90 % of communications. While this heuristic algorithm cannot guarantee that a true winning candidate is found, we show that in practice, close approximations are obtained.
Aggregating partially ordered preferences
"... Abstract. Preferences are not always expressible via complete linear orders: sometimes it is more natural to allow for the presence of incomparable outcomes. This may hold both in the agents ’ preference ordering and in the social order. In this paper we consider this scenario and we study what prop ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Preferences are not always expressible via complete linear orders: sometimes it is more natural to allow for the presence of incomparable outcomes. This may hold both in the agents ’ preference ordering and in the social order. In this paper we consider this scenario and we study what properties it may have. In particular, we show that, despite the added expressivity and ability to resolve conflicts provided by incomparability, classical impossibility results (such as Arrow’s theorem, MullerSatterthwaite’s theorem, and GibbardSatterthwaite’s theorem) still hold. We also prove some possibility results, generalizing Sen’s theorem for majority voting. To prove these results, we define new notions of unanimity, monotonicity, dictator, triplewise valuerestriction, and strategyproofness, which are suitable and natural generalizations of the classical ones for complete orders. 1
Compiling the Votes of a Subelectorate
"... In many practical contexts where a number of agents have to find a common decision, the votes do not come all together at the same time. In such situations, we may want to preprocess the information given by the subelectorate (consisting of the voters who have expressed their votes) so as to “compil ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In many practical contexts where a number of agents have to find a common decision, the votes do not come all together at the same time. In such situations, we may want to preprocess the information given by the subelectorate (consisting of the voters who have expressed their votes) so as to “compile” the known votes for the time when the latecomers have expressed their votes. We study the amount of space necessary for such a compilation, as a function of the voting rule, the number of candidates, and the number of votes already known. We relate our results to existing work, especially on communication complexity. 1