We study the problem of coalitional manipulation---where @math manipulators try to manipulate an election on @math candidates---under general scoring rules, with a focus on the Borda protocol. We do so both in the weighted and unweighted settings. We focus on minimizing the maximum score obtainable by a non-preferred candidate. In the strongest, most general setting, we provide an algorithm for any scoring rule as described by a vector @math : for some @math , it obtains an additive approximation equal to @math , where @math is the sum of voter weights. For Borda, both the weighted and unweighted variants are known to be @math -hard. For the unweighted case, our simpler algorithm provides a randomized, additive @math approximation; in other words, if there exists a strategy enabling the preferred candidate to win by an @math margin, our method, with high probability, will find a strategy enabling her to win (albeit with a possibly smaller margin). It thus provides a somewhat stronger guarantee compared to the previous methods, which implicitly implied a strategy that provides an @math -additive approximation to the maximum score of a non-preferred candidate. For the weighted case, our generalized algorithm provides an @math -additive approximation, where @math is the sum of voter weights. This is a clear advantage over previous methods: some of them do not generalize to the weighted case, while others---which approximate the number of manipulators---pose restrictions on the weights of extra manipulators added. Our methods are based on carefully rounding an exponentially-large configuration linear program that is solved by using the ellipsoid method with an efficient separation oracle.
@cite_10 present two additional heuristics: iteratively, assign the largest un-allocated score to the candidate with the largest gap (), or to the candidate with the largest ratio of gap divided by the number of scores yet-to-be-allocated to this candidate (). To the best of our knowledge, these algorithms do not have a counterpart for the weighted case.
@cite_10
2531043207 2011730242 2073127061 1578666690
We prove the first non-trivial performance ratios strictly above 0.5 for weighted versions of the oblivious matching problem. Even for the unweighted version, since Aronson, Dyer, Frieze, and Suen first proved a non-trivial ratio above 0.5 in the mid-1990s, during the next twenty years several attempts have been made to improve this ratio, until Chan, Chen, Wu and Zhao successfully achieved a significant ratio of 0.523 very recently (SODA 2014). To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first in the literature that considers the node-weighted and edge-weighted versions of the problem in arbitrary graphs (as opposed to bipartite graphs). (1) For arbitrary node weights, we prove that a weighted version of the Ranking algorithm has ratio strictly above 0.5. We have discovered a new structural property of the ranking algorithm: if a node has two unmatched neighbors at the end of algorithm, then it will still be matched even when its rank is demoted to the bottom. This property allows us to form LP constraints for both the node-weighted and the unweighted oblivious matching problems. As a result, we prove that the ratio for the node-weighted case is at least 0.501512. Interestingly via the structural property, we can also improve slightly the ratio for the unweighted case to 0.526823 (from the previous best 0.523166 in SODA 2014). (2) For a bounded number of distinct edge weights, we show that ratio strictly above 0.5 can be achieved by partitioning edges carefully according to the weights, and running the (unweighted) Ranking algorithm on each part. Our analysis is based on a new primal-dual framework known as , in which dual feasibility is bypassed. Instead, only dual constraints corresponding to edges in an optimal matching are satisfied. Using this framework we also design and analyze an algorithm for the edge-weighted online bipartite matching problem with free disposal. We prove that for the case of bounded online degrees, the ratio is strictly above 0.5. We study an online assignment problem, motivated by Adwords Allocation, in which queries are to be assigned to bidders with budget constraints. We analyze the performance of the Greedy algorithm (which assigns each query to the highest bidder) in a randomized input model with queries arriving in a random permutation. Our main result is a tight analysis of Greedy in this model showing that it has a competitive ratio of 1 - 1 e for maximizing the value of the assignment. We also consider the more standard i.i.d. model of input, and show that our analysis holds there as well. This is to be contrasted with the worst case analysis of [MSVV05] which shows that Greedy has a ratio of 1 2, and that the optimal algorithm presented there has a ratio of 1 - 1 e. The analysis of Greedy is important in the Adwords setting because it is the natural allocation algorithm for an auction-style process. From a theoretical perspective, our result simplifies and generalizes the classic algorithm of Karp, Vazirani and Vazirani for online bipartite matching. Our results include a new proof to show that the Ranking alforithm of [KVV90] has a ratio of 1 - 1 e in the worst case. It has been recently discovered [KV07] (independent of our results) that one of the crucial lemmas in [KVV90], related to a certain reduction, is incorrect. Our proof is direct, in that it does not go via such a reduction, which also enables us to generalize the analysis to our online assignment problem. We give a worst-case analysis for two greedy heuristics for the integer programming problem minimize cx , Ax (ge) b , 0 (le) x (le) u , x integer, where the entries in A, b , and c are all nonnegative. The first heuristic is for the case where the entries in A and b are integral, the second only assumes the rows are scaled so that the smallest nonzero entry is at least 1. In both cases we compare the ratio of the value of the greedy solution to that of the integer optimal. The error bound grows logarithmically in the maximum column sum of A for both heuristics. We study an online weighted assignment problem with a set of fixed nodes corresponding to advertisers and online arrival of nodes corresponding to ad impressions. Advertiser a has a contract for n(a) impressions, and each impression has a set of weighted edges to advertisers. The problem is to assign the impressions online so that while each advertiser a gets n(a) impressions, the total weight of edges assigned is maximized. Our insight is that ad impressions allow for free disposal, that is, advertisers are indifferent to, or prefer being assigned more than n(a) impressions without changing the contract terms. This means that the value of an assignment only includes the n(a) highest-weighted items assigned to each node a. With free disposal, we provide an algorithm for this problem that achieves a competitive ratio of 1 ? 1 e against the offline optimum, and show that this is the best possible ratio. We use a primal dual framework to derive our results, applying a novel exponentially-weighted dual update rule. Furthermore, our algorithm can be applied to a general set of assignment problems including the ad words problem as a special case, matching the previously known 1 ? 1 e competitive ratio.