Abstract
Most theoretical definitions about the complexity of manipulating elections focus on the decision problem of recognizing which instances can be successfully manipulated rather than the search problem of finding the successful manipulative actions. Since the latter is a far more natural goal for manipulators, that definitional focus may be misguided if these two complexities can differ. Our main result is that they probably do differ: If P ≠ NP ∩ coNP (which itself is well known to hold if integer factoring is hard), then for election manipulation, election bribery, and some types of election control, there are election systems for which the problem of recognizing which instances can be successfully manipulated is polynomial-time solvable, yet the task of producing the successful manipulations cannot be done in polynomial time.
- Dorit Aharonov and Oded Regev. 2005. Lattice problems in NP ∩ coNP. J. ACM 52, 5 (2005), 749--765.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John J. Bartholdi, III and James B. Orlin. 1991. Single transferable vote resists strategic voting. Soc. Choice Welfare 8, 4 (1991), 341--354.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John J. Bartholdi, III, Craig A. Tovey, and Michael A. Trick. 1989. The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Soc. Choice Welfare 6, 3 (1989), 227--241. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00295861Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John J. Bartholdi, III, Craig A. Tovey, and Michael A. Trick. 1989. Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election. Soc. Choice Welfare 6, 2 (1989), 157--165.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John J. Bartholdi, III, Craig A. Tovey, and Michael A. Trick. 1992. How hard is it to control an election? Math. Comput. Model. 16, 8--9 (1992), 27--40.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dorothea Baumeister, Gabor Erdélyi, Edith Hemaspaandra, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, and Jörg Rothe. 2010. Computational aspects of approval voting. In Handbook on Approval Voting, Jean-François Laslier and M. Remzi Sanver (Eds.). Springer, 199--251.Google Scholar
- Dorothea Baumeister and Jörg Rothe. 2016. Preference aggregation by voting. In Economics and Computation: An Introduction to Algorithmic Game Theory, Computational Social Choice, and Fair Division, Jörg Rothe (Ed.). Springer, 197--325.Google Scholar
- Mihir Bellare and Shafi Goldwasser. 1994. The complexity of decision versus search. SIAM J. Comput. 23, 1 (1994), 97--119.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leonard Berman and Juris Hartmanis. 1977. On isomorphisms and density of NP and other complete sets. SIAM J. Comput. 6, 2 (1977), 305--322.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Manuel Blum and Russell Impagliazzo. 1987. Generic oracles and oracle classes. In Proceedings of the 28th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 118--126.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Allan Borodin and Alan J. Demers. 1976. Some Comments on Functional Self-Reducibility and the NP Hierarchy. Technical Report TR 76-284. Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
- Samuel R. Buss. 1987. The Boolean formula value problem is in ALOGTIME. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM Press, 123--131.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Anne Condon. 1992. The complexity of stochastic games. Inf. Comput. 96, 2 (1992), 203--224.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Vincent Conitzer, Tuomas Sandholm, and Jérôme Lang. 2007. When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate? J. ACM 54, 3 (2007), Article 14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1236457.1236461Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Cynthia Dwork, Ravi Kumar, Moni Naor, and D. Sivakumar. 2001. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the 10th International World Wide Web Conference. ACM Press, 613--622.Google Scholar
- Eithan Ephrati and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein. 1997. A heuristic technique for multi-agent planning. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 20, 1--4 (1997), 13--67.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gábor Erdélyi, Michael R. Fellows, Jörg Rothe, and Lena Schend. 2015. Control complexity in Bucklin and fallback voting: A theoretical analysis. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 81, 4 (2015), 632--660.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gábor Erdélyi, Markus Nowak, and Jörg Rothe. 2009. Sincere-strategy preference-based approval voting fully resists constructive control and broadly resists destructive control. Math. Logic Quart. 55, 4 (2009), 425--443.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2009. How hard is bribery in elections? J. Artif. Intell. Res. 35 (2009), 485--532. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2676Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2010. Using complexity to protect elections. Commun. ACM 53, 11 (2010), 74--82.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2011. Multimode control attacks on elections. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 40 (2011), 305--351.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2014. The complexity of manipulative attacks in nearly single-peaked electorates. Artif. Intell. 207 (2014), 69--99.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2015. Weighted electoral control. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 52 (2015), 507--542.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, and Jörg Rothe. 2009. Llull and Copeland voting computationally resist bribery and constructive control. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 35 (2009), 275--341.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, and Jörg Rothe. 2009. A richer understanding of the complexity of election systems. In Fundamental Problems in Computing: Essays in Honor of Professor Daniel J. Rosenkrantz, Sekharipuram S. Ravi and Sandeep K. Shukla (Eds.). Springer, 375--406.Google Scholar
- Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, and Jörg Rothe. 2011. The shield that never was: Societies with single-peaked preferences are more open to manipulation and control. Inf. Comput. 209, 2 (2011), 89--107.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Piotr Faliszewski and Jörg Rothe. 2016. Control and bribery in voting. In Handbook of Computational Social Choice, Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D. Procaccia (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 146--168.Google Scholar
- Stephen A. Fenner, Lance Fortnow, Ashish V. Naik, and John D. Rogers. 2003. Inverting onto functions. Inf. Comput. 186, 1 (2003), 90--103.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson. 1979. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman 8 Company.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sumit Ghosh, Manisha Mundhe, Karina Hernandez, and Sandip Sen. 1999. Voting for Movies: The anatomy of recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents. ACM Press, 434--435.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Oded Goldreich and Shafi Goldwasser. 2000. On the limits of nonapproximability of lattice problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 60, 3 (2000), 540--563.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Juris Hartmanis and Lane A. Hemachandra. 1988. Complexity classes without machines: On complete languages for UP. Theor. Comput. Sci. 58, 1--3 (1988), 129--142.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Juris Hartmanis and Lane A. Hemachandra. 1990. Robust machines accept easy sets. Theor. Comput. Sci. 74, 2 (1990), 217--226.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lane A. Hemachandra. 1987. Counting in Structural Complexity Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
- Edith Hemaspaandra, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, and Curtis Menton. 2013. Search versus decision for election manipulation problems. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Vol. 20. 377--388.Google Scholar
- Edith Hemaspaandra, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, and Jörg Rothe. 2007. Anyone but him: The complexity of precluding an alternative. Artif. Intell. 171, 5--6 (2007), 255--285.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Edith Hemaspaandra, Ashish V. Naik, Mitsunori Ogihara, and Alan L. Selman. 1996. P-selective sets and reducing search to decision vs. self-reducibility. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 53, 2 (1996), 194--209.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2017. CSC 286/486. Retrieved from http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/lane/course-notes-csc486-2017.pdf.Google Scholar
- Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2018. Computational social choice and computational complexity: BFFs? In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 7971--7977.Google Scholar
- Lane A. Hemaspaandra, Rahman Lavaee, and Curtis Menton. 2016. Schulze and ranked-pairs voting are fixed-parameter tractable to bribe, manipulate, and control. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 77, 3--4 (2016), 191--223.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lane A. Hemaspaandra and David E. Narváez. 2017. The opacity of backbones. In Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 3900--3906.Google Scholar
- Lane A. Hemaspaandra and David E. Narváez. 2019. Existence versus exploitation: The opacity of backbones and backdoors under a weak assumption. In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11376, Springer-Verlag, 247--259.Google Scholar
- Lane A. Hemaspaandra, Jörg Rothe, and Gerd Wechsung. 1997. Easy sets and hard certificate schemes. Acta Inf. 34, 11 (1997), 859--879.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lane A. Hemaspaandra and Leen Torenvliet. 2003. Theory of Semi-Feasible Algorithms. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Lane A. Hemaspaandra and Marius Zimand. 1996. Strong self-reducibility precludes strong immunity. Math. Syst. Theory 29, 5 (1996), 535--548.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman. 1979. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Pavel Hubáček, Moni Naor, and Eylon Yogev. 2017. The journey from NP to TFNP hardness. In Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Vol. 67, 60:1--60:21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.60Google Scholar
- Russell Impagliazzo and Moni Naor. 1988. Decision trees and downward closures. In Proceedings of the 3rd Structure in Complexity Theory Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press, 29--38.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Marcin Jurdzinski. 1998. Deciding the winner in parity games is in UP ∩ co-UP. Inform. Process. Lett. 68, 3 (1998), 119--124.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Richard M. Karp, Eli Upfal, and Avi Wigderson. 1988. The complexity of parallel search. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 36, 1 (1988), 225--253.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Shiva Kintali. 2010. NP intersect coNP. Retrieved from kintali.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/np-intersect-conp.Google Scholar
- Richard E. Ladner, Nancy A. Lynch, and Alan L. Selman. 1975. A comparison of polynomial time reducibilities. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1, 2 (1975), 103--124. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(75)90016-XGoogle Scholar
Cross Ref
- Cynthia Maushagen and Jörg Rothe. 2018. Complexity of control by partitioning veto elections and of control by adding candidates to plurality elections. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 82, 4 (2018), 219--244.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nimrod Megiddo and Christos H. Papadimitriou. 1991. On total functions, existence theorems and computational complexity. Theor. Comput. Sci. 81, 2 (1991), 317--324. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(91)90200-LGoogle Scholar
Digital Library
- Curtis Menton. 2013. Normalized range voting broadly resists control. Theory Comput. Syst. 53, 4 (2013), 507--531.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Curtis Menton and Preetjot Singh. 2013. Control complexity of Schulze voting. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 286--292.Google Scholar
- Albert R. Meyer and Mike Paterson. 1979. With What Frequency Are Apparently Intractable Problems Difficult? Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-126. Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Marc Neveling and Jörg Rothe. 2017. Solving seven open problems of offline and online control in Borda elections. In Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 3029--3035.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- David C. Parkes and Lirong Xia. 2012. A complexity-of-strategic-behavior comparison between Schulze’s rule and ranked pairs. In Proceedings of the 26th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 1429--1435.Google Scholar
- Jörg Rothe. 1999. Complexity of Certificates, Heuristics, and Counting Types, with Applications to Cryptography and Circuit Theory. Habilitation thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Institut für Informatik, Jena, Germany.Google Scholar
- Claus-Peter Schnorr. 1976. Optimal algorithms for self-reducible problems. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Edinburgh University Press, 322--337.Google Scholar
- Peter W. Shor. 1997. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 5 (1997), 1484--1509.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gábor Tardos. 1989. Query complexity, or why is it difficult to separate NPA∩ coNPA from PA by random oracles A. Combinatorica 9 (1989), 385--392.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Leslie G. Valiant. 1976. The relative complexity of checking and evaluating. Inform. Process. Lett. 5, 1 (1976), 20--23.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John Watrous. 2011. An introduction to quantum information and quantum circuits. SIGACT News 42, 2 (2011), 52--67. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1998037.1998053Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Search versus Decision for Election Manipulation Problems
Recommendations
Decision versus search problems in super-polynomial time
SFCS '89: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer ScienceThe following propositions are considered: (1) E=NE (i.e. it is decidable in exponential time whether there is a solution for an exponential-type search problem). (2) Every exponential-type search problem is solvable in exponential time. (3) The first ...
High-Multiplicity Election Problems
AAMAS '18: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent SystemsThe computational study of elections generally assumes that the preferences of the electorate come in as a list of votes. Depending on the context, it may be much more natural to represent the list succinctly, as the distinct votes of the electorate and ...






Comments