skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Search versus Decision for Election Manipulation Problems

Published:11 February 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. Dorit Aharonov and Oded Regev. 2005. Lattice problems in NP ∩ coNP. J. ACM 52, 5 (2005), 749--765.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. John J. Bartholdi, III and James B. Orlin. 1991. Single transferable vote resists strategic voting. Soc. Choice Welfare 8, 4 (1991), 341--354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mihir Bellare and Shafi Goldwasser. 1994. The complexity of decision versus search. SIAM J. Comput. 23, 1 (1994), 97--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Anne Condon. 1992. The complexity of stochastic games. Inf. Comput. 96, 2 (1992), 203--224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2010. Using complexity to protect elections. Commun. ACM 53, 11 (2010), 74--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2011. Multimode control attacks on elections. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 40 (2011), 305--351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Piotr Faliszewski, Edith Hemaspaandra, and Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2015. Weighted electoral control. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 52 (2015), 507--542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Stephen A. Fenner, Lance Fortnow, Ashish V. Naik, and John D. Rogers. 2003. Inverting onto functions. Inf. Comput. 186, 1 (2003), 90--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Oded Goldreich and Shafi Goldwasser. 2000. On the limits of nonapproximability of lattice problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 60, 3 (2000), 540--563.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Juris Hartmanis and Lane A. Hemachandra. 1990. Robust machines accept easy sets. Theor. Comput. Sci. 74, 2 (1990), 217--226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Lane A. Hemachandra. 1987. Counting in Structural Complexity Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Lane A. Hemaspaandra. 2017. CSC 286/486. Retrieved from http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/lane/course-notes-csc486-2017.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Lane A. Hemaspaandra, Jörg Rothe, and Gerd Wechsung. 1997. Easy sets and hard certificate schemes. Acta Inf. 34, 11 (1997), 859--879.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Lane A. Hemaspaandra and Leen Torenvliet. 2003. Theory of Semi-Feasible Algorithms. Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Lane A. Hemaspaandra and Marius Zimand. 1996. Strong self-reducibility precludes strong immunity. Math. Syst. Theory 29, 5 (1996), 535--548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman. 1979. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Marcin Jurdzinski. 1998. Deciding the winner in parity games is in UP ∩ co-UP. Inform. Process. Lett. 68, 3 (1998), 119--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Richard M. Karp, Eli Upfal, and Avi Wigderson. 1988. The complexity of parallel search. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 36, 1 (1988), 225--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Shiva Kintali. 2010. NP intersect coNP. Retrieved from kintali.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/np-intersect-conp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Curtis Menton. 2013. Normalized range voting broadly resists control. Theory Comput. Syst. 53, 4 (2013), 507--531.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Leslie G. Valiant. 1976. The relative complexity of checking and evaluating. Inform. Process. Lett. 5, 1 (1976), 20--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Search versus Decision for Election Manipulation Problems

          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!