skip to main content
research-article
Free Access

Algorithmic Techniques for Necessary and Possible Winners

Published:21 July 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We investigate the practical aspects of computing the necessary and possible winners in elections over incomplete voter preferences. In the case of the necessary winners, we show how to implement and accelerate the polynomial-time algorithm of Xia and Conitzer. In the case of the possible winners, where the problem is NP-hard, we give a natural reduction to Integer Linear Programming (ILP) for all positional scoring rules and implement it in a leading commercial optimization solver. Further, we devise optimization techniques to minimize the number of ILP executions and, oftentimes, avoid them altogether. We conduct a thorough experimental study that includes the construction of a rich benchmark of election data based on real and synthetic data. Our findings suggest that, the worst-case intractability of the possible winners notwithstanding, the algorithmic techniques presented here scale well and can be used to compute the possible winners in realistic scenarios.

References

  1. Dorothea Baumeister, Piotr Faliszewski, Jérôme Lang, and Jörg Rothe. 2012. Campaigns for lazy voters: Truncated ballots. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 2. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 577–584. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Dorothea Baumeister and Jörg Rothe. 2012. Taking the final step to a full dichotomy of the possible winner problem in pure scoring rules. Inf. Process. Lett. 112, 5 (2012), 186–190. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2011.11.016 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Nadja Betzler and Britta Dorn. 2010. Towards a dichotomy for the possible winner problem in elections based on scoring rules. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 76, 8 (2010), 812–836. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2010.04.002 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Nadja Betzler, Susanne Hemmann, and Rolf Niedermeier. 2009. A multivariate complexity analysis of determining possible winners given incomplete votes. In Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI, 53–58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Nadja Betzler, Rolf Niedermeier, and Gerhard J. Woeginger. 2011. Unweighted coalitional manipulation under the Borda rule is NP-hard. In 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2016. Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Vishal Chakraborty and Phokion G. Kolaitis. 2020. The complexity of possible winners on partial chains. CoRR abs/2002.12510 (2020). arxiv:2002.12510. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.12510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jessica Davies, George Katsirelos, Nina Narodytska, and Toby Walsh. 2011. Complexity of and algorithms for Borda manipulation. In 25th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jean-Paul Doignon, Aleksandar Pekeč, and Michel Regenwetter. 2004. The repeated insertion model for rankings: Missing link between two subset choice models. Psychometrika 69, 1 (2004), 33–54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. William V. Gehrlein. 1986. On methods for generating random partial orders. Oper. Res. Lett. 5, 6 (1986), 285–291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Optimisation Gurobi. 2019. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual. Gurobi Optimization LLC, Beaverton, OR. http://www.gurobi.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Batya Kenig. 2019. The complexity of the possible winner problem with partitioned preferences. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS’19), Edith Elkind, Manuela Veloso, Noa Agmon, and Matthew E. Taylor (Eds.). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2051–2053. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3332007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Benny Kimelfeld, Phokion G. Kolaitis, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2018. Computational social choice meets databases. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, IJCAI, 317–323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Benny Kimelfeld, Phokion G. Kolaitis, and Muhammad Tibi. 2019. Query evaluation in election databases. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’19). ACM, 32–46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kathrin Konczak and Jérôme Lang. 2005. Voting procedures with incomplete preferences. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-05 Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling, Vol. 20. IJCAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. C. L. Mallows. 1957. Non-null ranking models. I. Biometrika 44, 1–2 (June 1, 1957), 114–130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Sergey Polyakovskiy, Rudolf Berghammer, and Frank Neumann. 2016. Solving hard control problems in voting systems via integer programming. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250, 1 (2016), 204–213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Shini Renjith, A. Sreekumar, and M. Jathavedan. 2018. Evaluation of partitioning clustering algorithms for processing social media data in tourism domain. In 2018 IEEE Recent Advances in Intelligent Computational Systems (RAICS’18). IEEE, 127–131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Julia Stoyanovich, Lovro Ilijasic, and Haoyue Ping. 2016. Workload-driven learning of mallows mixtures with pairwise preference data. In Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Web and Databases. ACM, 8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2932194.2932202 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lirong Xia and Vincent Conitzer. 2011. Determining possible and necessary winners given partial orders. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 41 (2011), 25–67. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.3186 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Yongjie Yang. 2014. Election attacks with few candidates. In ECAI (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Vol. 263. IOS Press, 1131–1132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Algorithmic Techniques for Necessary and Possible Winners

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!