We consider multi-agent systems where agents' preferences are aggregated via sequential majority voting: each decision is taken by performing a sequence of pairwise comparisons where each comparison is a weighted majority vote among the agents. Incompleteness in the agents' preferences is common in many real-life settings due to privacy issues or an ongoing elicitation process. In addition, there may be uncertainty about how the preferences are aggregated. For example, the agenda (a tree whose leaves are labelled with the decisions being compared) may not yet be known or fixed. We therefore study how to determine collectively optimal decisions (also called winners) when preferences may be incomplete, and when the agenda may be uncertain. We show that it is computationally easy to determine if a candidate decision always wins, or may win, whatever the agenda. On the other hand, it is computationally hard to know wheth er a candidate decision wins in at least one agenda for at least one completion of the agents' preferences. These results hold even if the agenda must be balanced so that each candidate decision faces the same number of majority votes. Such results are useful for reasoning about preference elicitation. They help understand the complexity of tasks such as determining if a decision can be taken collectively, as well as knowing if the winner can be manipulated by appropriately ordering the agenda.
Finally, Brandt consider different notions of winners starting from incomplete majority graphs @cite_2 . We plan to investigate these kinds of winners in our framework.
@cite_2
1991733990
We consider how to combine the preferences of multiple agents despite the presence of incompleteness and incomparability in their preference orderings. An agent's preference ordering may be incomplete because, for example, there is an ongoing preference elicitation process. It may also contain incomparability as this is useful, for example, in multi-criteria scenarios. We focus on the problem of computing the possible and necessary winners, that is, those outcomes which can be or always are the most preferred for the agents. Possible and necessary winners are useful in many scenarios including preference elicitation. First we show that computing the sets of possible and necessary winners is in general a difficult problem as is providing a good approximation of such sets. Then we identify general properties of the preference aggregation function which are sufficient for such sets to be computed in polynomial time. Finally, we show how possible and necessary winners can be used to focus preference elicitation. Preferences can be aggregated using voting rules. We consider here the family of rules which perform a sequence of pairwise majority comparisons between two candidates. The winner thus depends on the chosen sequence of comparisons, which can be represented by a binary tree. We address the difficulty of computing candidates that win for some trees, and then introduce and study the notion of fair winner, i.e. candidates who win in a balanced tree. We then consider the situation where we lack complete informations about preferences, and determine the computational complexity of computing winners in this case. A possible winner of an election is a candidate that has, in some kind of incomplete-information election, the possibility to win in a complete extension of the election. The first type of problem we study is the Possible co-Winner with respect to the Addition of New Candidates (PcWNA) problem, which asks, given an election with strict preferences over the candidates, is it possible to make a designated candidate win the election by adding a limited number of new candidates to the election? In the case of unweighted voters we show NP-completeness of PcWNA for a broad class of pure scoring rules. We will also briefly study the case of weighted voters. The second type of possible winner problem we study is Possible Winner co-Winner under Uncertain Voting System (PWUVS and PcWUVS). Here, uncertainty is present not in the votes but in the election rule itself. For example, PcWUVS is the problem of whether, given a set C of candidates, a list of votes over C, a distinguished candidate c ∈ C, and a class of election rules, there is at least one election rule from this class under which c wins the election. We study these two problems for a class of systems based on approval voting, the family of Copelandα elections, and a certain class of scoring rules. Our main result is that it is NP-complete to determine whether there is a scoring vector that makes c win the election, if we restrict the set of possible scoring vectors for an m-candidate election to those of the form (α1,..., αm−4, x1, x2, x3, 0), with xi = 1 for at least one i ∈ 1, 2, 3 . In 1876, Lewis Carroll proposed a voting system in which the winner is the candidate who with the fewest changes in voters' preferences becomes a Condorcet winner—a candidate who beats all other candidates in pairwise majority-rule elections. Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick provided a lower bound—NP-hardness—on the computational complexity of determining the election winner in Carroll's system. We provide a stronger lower bound and an upper bound that matches our lower bound. In particular, determining the winner in Carroll's system is complete for parallel access to NP, that is, it is complete for Theta_ 2 p for which it becomes the most natural complete problem known. It follows that determining the winner in Carroll's elections is not NP-complete unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses. Recent work by Procaccia, Rosenschein and Zohar [14] established some results regarding the complexity of manipulation and control in elections with multiple winners, such as elections of an assembly or committee; that work provided an initial understanding of the topic. In this paper, we paint a more complete picture of the topic, investigating four prominent multi-winner voting rules. First, we characterize the complexity of manipulation and control in these voting rules under various kinds of formalizations of the manipulator's goal. Second, we extend the results about complexity of control to various well-known types of control. This work enhances our comprehension of which multi-winner voting rules should be employed in various settings. We characterize the class of committee scoring rules that satisfy the fixed-majority criterion. In some sense, the committee scoring rules in this class are multiwinner analogues of the single-winner Plurality rule, which is uniquely characterized as the only single-winner scoring rule that satisfies the simple majority criterion. We find that, for most of the rules in our new class, the complexity of winner determination is high (i.e., the problem of computing the winners is NP-hard), but we also show some examples of polynomial-time winner determination procedures, exact and approximate. This paper considers the communication complexity of approximating common voting rules. Both upper and lower bounds are presented. For n voters and m alternatives, it is shown that for all e e (0, 1), the communication complexity of obtaining a 1 - e approximation to Borda is O(log (1 e)nm). A lower bound of Ω(nm) is provided for fixed small values of e. The communication complexity of computing the true Borda winner is Ω(nm log(m)) [5]. Thus, in the case of Borda, one can obtain arbitrarily good approximations with less communication overhead than is required to compute the true Borda winner. For other voting rules, no such 1±e approximation scheme exists. In particular, it is shown that the communication complexity of computing any constant factor approximation, ρ, to Bucklin is Ω(nm ρ2). Conitzer and Sandholm [5] show that the communication complexity of computing the true Bucklin winner is O(nm). However, we show that for all δ e (0, 1), the communication complexity of computing a mδ approximate winner in Bucklin elections is O(nm1 - δ log(m)). For δ e (1 2, 1), a lower bound of ω(nm1-2δ) is also provided. Similar lower bounds are presented on the communication complexity of computing approximate winners in Copeland elections. While voting schemes provide an effective means for aggregating preferences, methods for the effective elicitation of voter preferences have received little attention. We address this problem by first considering approximate winner determination when incomplete voter preferences are provided. Exploiting natural scoring metrics, we use max regret to measure the quality or robustness of proposed winners, and develop polynomial time algorithms for computing the alternative with minimax regret for several popular voting rules. We then show how minimax regret can be used to effectively drive incremental preference vote elicitation and devise several heuristics for this process. Despite worst-case theoretical results showing that most voting protocols require nearly complete voter preferences to determine winners, we demonstrate the practical effectiveness of regret-based elicitation for determining both approximate and exact winners on several real-world data sets. An alternative is said to be a Condorcet winner of an election if it is preferred to any other alternative by a majority of voters. While this is a very attractive solution concept, many elections do not have a Condorcet winner. In this paper, we propose a set-valued relaxation of this concept, which we call a Condorcet winning set: such sets consist of alternatives that collectively dominate any other alternative. We also consider a more general version of this concept, where instead of domination by a majority of voters we require domination by a given fraction @math θ of voters; we refer to such sets as @math θ -winning sets. We explore social choice-theoretic and algorithmic aspects of these solution concepts, both theoretically and empirically. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 We investigate two systems of fully proportional representation suggested by Chamberlin & Courant and Monroe. Both systems assign a representative to each voter so that the "sum of misrepresentations" is minimized. The winner determination problem for both systems is known to be NP-hard, hence this work aims at investigating whether there are variants of the proposed rules and or specific electorates for which these problems can be solved efficiently. As a variation of these rules, instead of minimizing the sum of misrepresentations, we considered minimizing the maximal misrepresentation introducing effectively two new rules. In the general case these "minimax" versions of classical rules appeared to be still NP-hard. We investigated the parameterized complexity of winner determination of the two classical and two new rules with respect to several parameters. Here we have a mixture of positive and negative results: e.g., we proved fixed-parameter tractability for the parameter the number of candidates but fixed-parameter intractability for the number of winners. For single-peaked electorates our results are overwhelmingly positive: we provide polynomial-time algorithms for most of the considered problems. The only rule that remains NP-hard for single-peaked electorates is the classical Monroe rule. A group of peers must choose one of them to receive a prize; everyone cares only about winning, not about who gets the prize if someone else. An award rule is impartial if one's message never influences whether or not one wins the prize. We explore the consequences of impartiality when each agent nominates a single (other) agent for the prize. @PARASPLIT On the positive side, we construct impartial nomination rules where both the influence of individual messages and the requirements to win the prize are not very different across agents. Partition the agents in two or more districts, each of size at least 3, and call an agent a local winner if he is nominated by a majority of members of his own district; the rule selects a local winner with the largest support from nonlocal winners, or a fixed default agent in case there is no local winner. @PARASPLIT On the negative side, impartiality implies that ballots cannot be processed anonymously as in plurality voting. Moreover, we cannot simultaneously guarantee that the winner always gets at least one nomination, and that an agent nominated by everyone else always wins. 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 sub-problems: determining whether c is a unique winner (that is, c is the only winner), or determining whether c is a co-winner (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. Abstract We show that the two NP-complete problems of Dodgson Score and Young Score have differing computational complexities when the winner is close to being a Condorcet winner. On the one hand, we present an efficient fixed-parameter algorithm for determining a Condorcet winner in Dodgson elections by a minimum number of switches in the votes. On the other hand, we prove that the corresponding problem for Young elections, where one has to delete votes instead of performing switches, is W[2]-complete. In addition, we study Dodgson elections that allow ties between the candidates and give fixed-parameter tractability as well as W[2]-completeness results depending on the cost model for switching ties. Demange (2012) generalized the classical single-crossing property to the intermediate property on median graphs and proved that the representative voter theorem still holds for this more general framework. We complement her result with proving that the linear orders of any profile which is intermediate on a median graph form a Condorcet domain. We prove that for any median graph there exists a profile that is intermediate with respect to that graph and that one may need at least as many alternatives as vertices to construct such a profile. We provide a polynomial-time algorithm to recognize whether or not a given profile is intermediate with respect to some median graph. Finally, we show that finding winners for the Chamberlin-Courant rule is polynomial-time solvable for profiles that are single-crossing on a tree. We study the computational complexity of the counting version of the POSSIBLE-WINNER problem for elections. In the POSSIBLE-WINNER problem we are given a profile of voters, each with a partial preference order, and ask if there are linear extensions of the votes such that a designated candidate wins. We also analyze a special case of POSSIBLE-WINNER, the MANIPULATION problem. We provide polynomial-time algorithms for counting manipulations in a class of scoring protocols and in several other voting rules. We show #P-hardness of the counting variant of POSSIBLE-WINNER for plurality and veto and give a simple yet general and practically useful randomized algorithm for a variant of POSSIBLE-WINNER for all voting rules for which a winner can be computed in polynomial time. Although recent years have seen a surge of interest in the computational aspects of social choice, no attention has previously been devoted to elections with multiple winners, e.g., elections of an assembly or committee. In this paper, we fully characterize the worst-case complexity of manipulation and control in the context of four prominent multi-winner voting systems. Additionally, we show that several tailor-made multi-winner voting schemes are impractical, as it is NP-hard to select the winners in these schemes. In the year 1876 the mathematician Charles Dodgson, who wrote fiction under the now more famous name of Lewis Carroll, devised a beautiful voting system that has long fascinated political scientists. However, determining the winner of a Dodgson election is known to be complete for the Θ2 p level of the polynomial hierarchy. This implies that unless P=NP no polynomial-time solution to this problem exists, and unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses to NP the problem is not even in NP. Nonetheless, we prove that when the number of voters is much greater than the number of candidates—although the number of voters may still be polynomial in the number of candidates—a simple greedy algorithm very frequently finds the Dodgson winners in such a way that it “knows” that it has found them, and furthermore the algorithm never incorrectly declares a nonwinner to be a winner. This paper is an axiomatic study of consistent approval-based multi-winner rules, i.e., voting rules that select a fixed-size group of candidates based on approval ballots. We introduce the class of counting rules, provide an axiomatic characterization of this class and, in particular, show that counting rules are consistent. Building upon this result, we axiomatically characterize three important consistent multi-winner rules: Proportional Approval Voting, Multi-Winner Approval Voting and the Approval Chamberlin--Courant rule. Our results demonstrate the variety of multi-winner rules and illustrate three different, orthogonal principles that multi-winner voting rules may represent: individual excellence, diversity, and proportionality. This paper presents a novel unifying framework for electronic voting in the universal composability model that includes a property which is new to universal composability but well-known to voting systems: universal verifiability. Additionally, we propose three new techniques for secure electronic voting and prove their security and universal verifiability in the universal composability framework. 1. A tally-hiding voting system, in which the tally that is released consists of only the winner without the vote count. Our proposal builds on a novel solution to the millionaire problem which is of independent interest. 2. A self-tallying vote, in which the tally can be calculated by any observer as soon as the last vote has been cast — but before this happens, no information about the tally is leaked. 3. Authentication of voting credentials, which is a new approach for electronic voting systems based on anonymous credentials. In this approach, the vote authenticates the credential so that it cannot afterwards be used for any other purpose but to cast that vote. We propose a practical voting system that instantiates this high-level concept. Note. This is the extended version of the paper with the same title [33], which appeared in the USENIX Journal of Election Technology and Systems (JETS) [35]. Please cite that version instead. Many hard computational social choice problems are known to become tractable when voters' preferences belong to a restricted domain, such as those of single-peaked or single-crossing preferences. However, to date, all algorithmic results of this type have been obtained for the setting where each voter's preference list is a total order of candidates. The goal of this paper is to extend this line of research to the setting where voters' preferences are dichotomous, i.e., each voter approves a subset of candidates and disapproves the remaining candidates. We propose several analogues of the notions of single-peaked and single-crossing preferences for dichotomous profiles and investigate the relationships among them. We then demonstrate that for some of these notions the respective restricted domains admit efficient algorithms for computationally hard approval-based multi-winner rules.