We study the phase transition of the coalitional manipulation problem for generalized scoring rules. Previously it has been shown that, under some conditions on the distribution of votes, if the number of manipulators is @math , where @math is the number of voters, then the probability that a random profile is manipulable by the coalition goes to zero as the number of voters goes to infinity, whereas if the number of manipulators is @math , then the probability that a random profile is manipulable goes to one. Here we consider the critical window, where a coalition has size @math , and we show that as @math goes from zero to infinity, the limiting probability that a random profile is manipulable goes from zero to one in a smooth fashion, i.e., there is a smooth phase transition between the two regimes. This result analytically validates recent empirical results, and suggests that deciding the coalitional manipulation problem may be of limited computational hardness in practice.
A recent line of research with an average-case algorithmic flavor also suggests that manipulation is indeed typically easy; see, e.g., the work of Kelly @cite_30 , Conitzer and Sandholm @cite_2 , Procaccia and Rosenschein @cite_25 , and @cite_26 for results on certain restricted classes of SCFs. A different approach, initiated by Friedgut, Kalai, Keller and Nisan @cite_23 @cite_36 , who studied the fraction of ranking profiles that are manipulable, also suggests that manipulation is easy on average; see further Xia and Conitzer @cite_16 , Dobzinski and Procaccia @cite_0 , Isaksson, Kindler and Mossel @cite_14 , and Mossel and R 'acz @cite_33 . We refer to the survey by Faliszewski and Procaccia @cite_12 for a detailed history of the surrounding literature. See also related literature in economics, e.g., @cite_34 @cite_6 @cite_4 .
@cite_30 @cite_26 @cite_14 @cite_33 @cite_4 @cite_36 @cite_34 @cite_6 @cite_0 @cite_23 @cite_2 @cite_16 @cite_25 @cite_12
2269992556 1542025417 2011730242 1972375916
We study digital-goods auctions for items in unlimited supply introduced by Goldberg, Hartline and Wright. Since no deterministic algorithms are competitive for this class of auctions, one of the central research issues is how to obtain a nice probabilistic distribution over truthful algorithms. In this paper, we introduce a rather systematic approach to this goal: Consider for example the Sampling Cost Share (SCS) auction. It is well known that SCS works well if the the current bid vector produces many winners against F(2), the standard benchmark algorithm for competitive analysis. In fact, its competitive ratio is approaching to 2.0 as k (= the number of F(2) winners) grows. On the other hand, its competitive ratio becomes as bad as 4.0 for k = 2. Our new approach is to develop a sequence of similar cost-share type algorithms, DCSk, which work well for small k. Now we choose a sufficiently large constant N and run DCS1, DCS2, ..., DCSN and SCS with probabilities p1, p2, ..., pN and q, respectively. It should be noted that we can use LP to obtain optimal p1, p2,..., pN and q. By this averaging method, we can improve the competitive ratio of SCS from 4.0 to 3.531 and that of the currently best Aggregated γ3 algorithm due to Hartline and McGrew from 3.243 to 3.119. We study the problem of computing maximin share allocations, a recently introduced fairness notion. Given a set of n agents and a set of goods, the maximin share of an agent is the best she can guarantee to herself, if she is allowed to partition the goods in any way she prefers, into n bundles, and then receive her least desirable bundle. The objective then is to find a partition, where each agent is guaranteed her maximin share. Such allocations do not always exist, hence we resort to approximation algorithms. Our main result is a 2 3-approximation that runs in polynomial time for any number of agents and goods. This improves upon the algorithm of Procaccia and Wang (2014), which is also a 2 3-approximation but runs in polynomial time only for a constant number of agents. To achieve this, we redesign certain parts of the algorithm in Procaccia and Wang (2014), exploiting the construction of carefully selected matchings in a bipartite graph representation of the problem. Furthermore, motivated by the apparent difficulty in establishing lower bounds, we undertake a probabilistic analysis. We prove that in randomly generated instances, maximin share allocations exist with high probability. This can be seen as a justification of previously reported experimental evidence. Finally, we provide further positive results for two special cases arising from previous works. The first is the intriguing case of three agents, where we provide an improved 7 8-approximation. The second case is when all item values belong to 0, 1, 2 , where we obtain an exact algorithm. 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. 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 protocols where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard. Especially among computational agents, it is reasonable to measure this hardness by computational complexity. Some earlier work has been done in this area, but it was assumed that the number of voters and candidates is unbounded. Such hardness results lose relevance when the number of candidates is small, because manipulation algorithms that are exponential only in the number of candidates (and only slightly so) might be available. We give such an algorithm for an individual agent to manipulate the Single Transferable Vote (STV) protocol, which has been shown hard to manipulate in the above sense. This motivates the core of this article, which derives hardness results for realistic elections where the number of candidates is a small constant (but the number of voters can be large). The main manipulation question we study is that of coalitional manipulation by weighted voters. (We show that for simpler manipulation problems, manipulation cannot be hard with few candidates.) We study both constructive manipulation (making a given candidate win) and destructive manipulation (making a given candidate not win). We characterize the exact number of candidates for which manipulation becomes hard for the plurality, Borda, STV, Copeland, maximin, veto, plurality with runoff, regular cup, and randomized cup protocols. We also show that hardness of manipulation in this setting implies hardness of manipulation by an individual in unweighted settings when there is uncertainty about the others' votes (but not vice-versa). To our knowledge, these are the first results on the hardness of manipulation when there is uncertainty about the others' votes.