We study a generalization of the standard approval-based model of participatory budgeting (PB), in which voters are providing approval ballots over a set of predefined projects and—in addition to a global budget limit, there are several groupings of the projects, each group with its own budget limit. We study the computational complexity of identifying project bundles that maximize voter satisfaction while respecting all budget limits. We show that the problem is generally intractable and describe efficient exact algorithms for several special cases, including instances with only few groups and instances where the group structure is close to be hierarchical, as well as efficient approximation algorithms. Our results could allow, e.g., municipalities to hold richer PB processes that are thematically and geographically inclusive.

A *citizens' assembly* is a group of people who are randomly selected to represent a larger population in a deliberation. While this approach has successfully strengthened democracy, it has certain limitations that suggest the need for assemblies to form and associate more organically. In response, we propose *federated assemblies*, where assemblies are interconnected, and each parent assembly is selected from members of its child assemblies. The main technical challenge is to develop random selection algorithms that meet new representation constraints inherent in this hierarchical structure. We design and analyze several algorithms that provide different representation guarantees under various assumptions on the structure of the underlying graph.

We introduce a model for collaborative text aggregation in which an agent community coauthors a document (modeled as an unordered collection of paragraphs) using a dynamic mechanism: agents propose paragraphs and vote on those suggested by others. We formalize the setting and explore its realizations, concentrating on voting mechanisms that aggregate votes into a single, dynamic document. We focus on two desiderata: the eventual stability of the process and its expected social welfare. Following an impossibility result, we describe several aggregation methods and report on agent-based simulations that utilize natural language processing (NLP) and large-language models (LLMs) to model agents. Using these simulations, we demonstrate promising results regarding the possibility of rapid convergence to a high social welfare collaborative text.

Purpose: Multiwinner voting rules typically require full knowledge of voter preferences, which becomes impractical in large-scale or attention-limited settings. This paper investigates how accurately a winning committee can be approximated when voter preferences are elicited using a limited budget of structured queries. Methods: We introduce a query-based framework for multiwinner elections in which voter preferences are elicited through refinement queries over subsets of candidates under a limited budget. We analyse several cost functions that model the cognitive effort needed to answer such queries, propose axiomatic properties for evaluating them, and experimentally evaluate simple query-based committee selection rules across multiple election models. Results: Experimental results show that strategies based on recursively splitting candidate sets provide the best trade-off between elicitation cost and committee accuracy. Across several statistical models, these strategies approximate the outcome of k-Borda elections significantly more efficiently than alternative query types. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that well-designed query strategies can substantially reduce the amount of preference information required while still producing high-quality committee outcomes, suggesting that query-based elicitation is a promising approach for scalable multiwinner decision-making.

Food and nutrition insecurity is a growing global challenge, exacerbated by crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and disruptions in supply chains caused by geopolitical events. This study introduces a hybrid Web3-Web2 system to enhance food security through monitoring the transaction-based food system at a national level. The system comprises elements based on blockchain technology and business intelligence (BI) in the state of Israel. By combining the decentralization, transparency, and immutability of blockchain with some functionalities of Web2 applications, the system enables real-time monitoring and optimization of Israel’s food supply chain. The blockchain component, a natural candidate for storing transaction-based data, ensures data integrity, traceability, and trust among stakeholders, while the BI dashboards facilitate data-driven decision-making and efficient resource allocation. The system implements smart contracts to automate compliance verification while maintaining transaction privacy through strategic data partitioning between public and private storage. The system also leverages graph-based network analysis to identify inefficiencies, minimize food waste, and enhance supply chain sustainability. We discuss how technology can address food security challenges and outline pathways for implementation, offering a model for other nations facing similar issues.

Our main contribution is the introduction of the map of elections framework. A map of elections consists of three main elements: (1) a dataset of elections (i.e., collections of ordinal votes over given sets of candidates), (2) a way of measuring similarities between these elections, and (3) a representation of the elections in the 2D Euclidean space as points, so that the more similar two elections are, the closer are their points. In our maps, we mostly focus on datasets of synthetic elections, but we also show an example of a map over real-life ones. To measure similarities, we would have preferred to use, e.g., the isomorphic swap distance, but this is infeasible due to its high computational complexity. Hence, we propose polynomial-time computable positionwise distance and use it instead. Regarding the representations in 2D Euclidean space , we mostly use the Kamada-Kawai algorithm, but we also show two alternatives. We develop the necessary theoretical results to form our maps and argue experimentally that they are accurate and credible. Further, we show how coloring the elections in a map according to various criteria helps in analyzing results of a number of experiments. In particular, we show colorings according to the scores of winning candidates or committees, running times of ILP-based winner determination algorithms, and approximation ratios achieved by particular algorithms.

Graph-restricted weighted voting games generalize weighted voting games, a well-studied class of succinct simple games, by embedding them into a communication structure: a graph whose vertices are the players some of which are connected by edges. In such games, only sufficiently connected coalitions are taken into consideration for calculating the players' power indices. Focusing on the probabilistic Penrose-Banzhaf index (which Dubey and Shapley proposed in 1979 as an alternative to the normalized Penrose-Banzhaf index) and the Shapley-Shubik index, we study control of these games by an agent who can add edges to or delete edges from the given graph. We determine upper and lower bounds on how much such control actions can change a distinguished player's power and we study the computational complexity of the related problems.

We introduce and study isomorphic distances between ordinal elections (with the same numbers of candidates and voters). The main feature of these distances is that they are invariant to renaming the candidates and voters, and two elections are at distance zero if and only if they are isomorphic. Specifically, we consider isomorphic extensions of distances between preference orders: Given such a distance d , we extend it to distance d - ID between elections by unifying candidate names and finding a matching between the votes, so that the sum of the d -distances between the matched votes is as small as possible. We show that testing isomorphism of two elections can be done in polynomial time so, in principle, such distances can be tractable. Yet, we show that two very natural isomorphic distances are NP-complete and hard to approximate. We attempt to rectify the situation by showing FPT algorithms for several natural parameterizations.

Given a large number (notationally m ) of users' (members or voters) preferences as inputs over a large number of items or candidates (notationally n ), preference queries leverage different preference aggregation methods to aggregate individual preferences in a systematic manner and come up with a single output (either a complete order or top- k , ordered or unordered) that is most representative of the users' preferences. The goal of this 1.5 hour lecture style tutorial is to adapt different preference aggregation methods from social choice theories, summarize how existing research has handled fairness over these methods, identify their limitations, and outline new research directions.

Graph-restricted weighted voting games generalize weighted voting games, a well-studied class of succinct simple games, by embedding them into a communication structure: a graph whose vertices are the players some of which are connected by edges. In such games, only connected coalitions are taken into consideration for calculating the players’ power indices. We focus on the probabilistic Penrose–Banzhaf index [5] and the Shapley–Shubik index [18] and study the computational complexity of manipulating these games by an external agent who can add edges to or delete edges from the graph. For the problems modeling such scenarios, we raise some of the lower bounds obtained by Kaczmarek and Rothe [9] from NP- or DP-hardness to PP-hardness, where PP is probabilistic polynomial time. We also solve one of their open problems by showing that it is a coNP-hard problem to maintain the Shapley–Shubik index of a given player in a graph-restricted weighted voting game when edges are deleted.

We study the computational complexity of identifying a small agreeable subset of items. A subset of items is agreeable if every agent does not prefer its complement set. We study settings in which agents either can assign arbitrary utilities to the items; can approve or disapprove the items; or can rank the items (in which case we consider Borda utilities). We prove that deciding whether an agreeable set exists is NP-hard for all variants; and we perform a parameterized analysis regarding the following natural parameters: the number of agents, the number of items, and the upper bound on the size of the agreeable set in question.

We provide a library of participatory budgeting data (Pabulib) and open source tools (Pabutools and Pabustats) for analysing this data. We analyse how the results of participatory budgeting elections would change if a different selection rule was applied. We provide evidence that the outcomes of the Method of Equal Shares would be considerably fairer than those of the Utilitarian Greedy rule that is currently in use. We also show that the division of the projects into districts and/or categories can in many cases be avoided when using proportional rules. We find that this would increase the overall utility of the voters.

This is a correction to: Piotr Faliszewski, Rica Gonen, Martin Koutecý, Nimrod Talmon, Opinion diffusion and campaigning on society graphs, Journal of Logi

Mainstream cryptocurrencies, based on proof of work or stake, require paying miners for the capital-intensive execution of a consensus protocol, and hence are unsuitable as a foundation for capital-free digital communities and for the bootstrap of a grassroots digital society. We aim to adapt and adjust the concepts, tools and technologies developed by the cryptocurrencies ecosystem, together with related networking technologies, into a foundation for a healthy grassroots digital economy and society. In this context we present the design and proof-of-concept implementation of a self-sovereign digital agent (ssDA), as an essential building block for a grassroots digital economy and society. The ssDA serves as a party, on behalf of its sovereign—a person—in digital social contracts, which are smart contracts among vetted participants, who are its sovereign in that they jointly execute the contract with an egalitarian consensus protocol. Digital social contracts may realize social networks, sharing economy applications, social governance of a digital community, and more. The ssDA is a software application that allows a person to partake in multiple digital social contracts simultaneously. Participation in a contract can be realized by initiating it or by being invited to it. Extra confidence in the integrity of the data is achieved by each person maintaining a blockchain containing all the person’s transactions in all contracts.

Voting is a crucial methodology for eliciting and combining agents' preferences and information across many applications. Just as there are numerous voting rules exhibiting different properties, we also see many different voting systems. In this paper we investigate how different voting systems perform as a function of the characteristics of the underlying voting population and social network. In particular, we compare direct democracy, liquid democracy, and sortition in a ground truth voting context. Through simulations -- using both real and artificially generated social networks -- we illustrate how voter competency distributions and levels of direct participation affect group accuracy differently in each voting mechanism. Our results can be used to guide the selection of a suitable voting system based on the characteristics of a particular voting setting.

We consider an agent community wishing to decide on several binary issues by means of issue-by-issue majority voting. For each issue and each agent, one of the two options is better than the other. However, some of the agents may be confused about some of the issues, in which case they may vote for the option that is objectively worse for them. A benevolent external party wants to help the agents to make better decisions, i.e., select the majority-preferred option for as many issues as possible. This party may have one of the following tools at its disposal: (1) educating some of the agents, so as to enable them to vote correctly on all issues, (2) appointing a subset of highly competent agents to make decisions on behalf of the entire group, or (3) guiding the agents on how to delegate their votes to other agents, in a way that is consistent with the agents' opinions. For each of these tools, we study the complexity of the decision problem faced by this external party, obtaining both NP-hardness results and fixed-parameter tractability results.

We extend the map-of-elections framework to the case of approval elections. While doing so, we study a number of statistical cultures, including some new ones, and we analyze their properties. We find that approval elections can be understood in terms of the average number of approvals in the votes, and the extent to which the votes are chaotic.

Abstract We study the effects of campaigning, where the society is partitioned into voter clusters and a diffusion process propagates opinions in a network connecting the clusters. Our model can incorporate different campaigning actions, various partitions of the society into clusters and very general diffusion processes. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that computing the cheapest campaign for rigging a given election can usually be done efficiently, even with arbitrarily-many voters. Moreover, we report on computational simulations we have performed to evaluate the quality and efficiency of finding such solutions.

We study a setting in which a community wishes to identify a strongly supported proposal from a large space of alternatives, in order to change the status quo. We describe a deliberation process in which agents dynamically form coalitions around proposals that they prefer over the status quo. We formulate conditions on the space of proposals and on the ways in which coalitions are formed that guarantee deliberation to succeed, that is, to terminate by identifying a proposal with the largest possible support. Our results provide theoretical foundations for the analysis of deliberative processes in systems for democratic deliberation support, such as, e.g., LiquidFeedback or Polis.

We study a generalization of the standard approval-based model of participatory budgeting (PB), in which voters are providing approval ballots over a set of predefined projects and---in addition to a global budget limit---there are several groupings of the projects, each group with its own budget limit. We study the computational complexity of identifying project bundles that maximize voter satisfaction while respecting all budget limits. We show that the problem is generally intractable and describe efficient exact algorithms for several special cases, including instances with only few groups and instances where the group structure is close to being hierarchical, as well as efficient approximation algorithms. Our results could allow, e.g., municipalities to hold richer PB processes that are thematically and geographically inclusive.

Multiwinner elections have proven to be a fruitful research topic with many real world applications. We contribute to this line of research by improving the state of the art regarding the computational complexity of computing good committees. More formally, given a set of candidates C, a set of voters V, each ranking the candidates according to their preferences, and an integer k; a multiwinner voting rule identifies a committee of size k, based on these given voter preferences. In this paper we consider several utilitarian and egailitarian OWA (ordered weighted average) scoring rules, which are an extensively researched family of rules (and a subfamily of the family of committee scoring rules). First, we improve the result of Betzler et al. [JAIR, 2013], which gave a O(n^n) algorithm for computing winner under the Chamberlin Courant rule (CC), where n is the number of voters; to a running time of O(2^n), which is optimal. Furthermore, we study the parameterized complexity of the Pessimist voting rule and describe a few tractable and intractable cases. Apart from such utilitarian voting rules, we extend our study and consider egalitarian median and egalitarian mean (both committee scoring rules), showing some tractable and intractable results, based on nontrivial structural observations.

We present a unifying framework encompassing a plethora of social choice settings. Viewing each social choice setting as voting in a suitable metric space, we offer a general model of social choice over metric spaces, in which—similarly to the spatial model of elections—each voter specifies an ideal element of the metric space. The ideal element acts as a vote, where each voter prefers elements that are closer to her ideal element. But it also acts as a proposal, thus making all participants equal not only as voters but also as proposers. We consider Condorcet aggregation and a continuum of solution concepts, ranging from minimizing the sum of distances to minimizing the maximum distance. We study applications of our abstract model to various social choice settings, including single-winner elections, committee elections, participatory budgeting, and participatory legislation. For each setting, we compare each solution concept to known voting rules and study various properties of the resulting voting rules. Our framework provides expressive aggregation for a broad range of social choice settings while remaining simple for voters; and may enable a unified and integrated implementation for all these settings, as well as unified extensions such as sybil-resiliency, proxy voting, and deliberative decision making. We study applications of our abstract model to various social choice settings, including single-winner elections, committee elections, participatory budgeting, and participatory legislation. For each setting, we compare each solution concept to known voting rules and study various properties of the resulting voting rules. Our framework provides expressive aggregation for a broad range of social choice settings while remaining simple for voters; and may enable a unified and integrated implementation for all these settings, as well as unified extensions such as sybil-resiliency, proxy voting, and deliberative decision making.

Preventing fake or duplicate digital identities (akasybils) from joining a digital community may be crucial to its survival, especially if it utilizes a consensus protocol among its members or employs democratic governance, where sybils can undermine consensus, tilt decisions, or even take over. Here, we explore the use of a trust-graph of identities, with edges representing trust among identity owners, to allow a community to grow indefinitely without increasing its sybil penetration. Since identities are admitted to the digital community based on their trust by existing digital community members,corruptidentities, which may trust sybils, also pose a threat to the digital community. Sybils and their corrupt perpetrators are together referred to asbyzantines, and the overarching aim is to limit their penetration into a digital community. We propose two alternative tools to achieve this goal. One is graph conductance, which works under the assumption that honest people are averse to corrupt ones and tend to distrust them. The second is vertex expansion, which relies on the assumption that there are not too many corrupt identities in the community. Of particular interest is keeping the fraction of byzantines below one third, as it would allow the use of Byzantine Agreement (Lamportet al., 1982) for consensus as well as for sybil-resilient social choice (Shahafet al., 2019). This paper considers incrementally growing a trust graph and shows that, under its key assumptions and additional requirements, including keeping the conductance or vertex expansion of the community trust graph sufficiently high, a community may grow safely, indefinitely.

We study committee selection with multimodal preferences: Assuming a set of candidates A, a set of voters V, and ℓ layers, where each voter v ∈ V has ordinal preferences over the alternatives for each layer separately, the task is to select a committee S ⊆ A of size k. We discuss applications of our model and study the computational complexity of several generalizations of known committee scoring rules (specifically, k-Borda and Chamberlin–Courant) to our setting, as well as discuss domain restrictions for our model. While most problems we encounter are computationally intractable in general, we nevertheless design efficient algorithms for certain cases.

We consider voting rules for approval-based elections that select committees whose size is not predetermined. Unlike the study of rules that output committees with a predetermined number of winning candidates, the study of rules that select a variable number of winners has only recently been initiated. We first mention some scenarios for which such rules are applicable. Then, aiming at better understanding these rules, we study their computational properties and report on simulations regarding the sizes of their committees.

Participatory budgeting systems allow city residents to jointly decide on projects they wish to fund using public money, by letting residents vote on such projects. While participatory budgeting is gaining popularity, existing aggregation methods do not take into account the natural possibility of project interactions, such as substitution and complementarity effects. Here we take a step towards fixing this issue: First, we augment the standard model of participatory budgeting by introducing a partition over the projects and model the type and extent of project interactions within each part using certain functions. We study the computational complexity of finding bundles that maximize voter utility, as defined with respect to such functions. Motivated by the desire to incorporate project interactions in real-world participatory budgeting systems, we identify certain cases that admit efficient aggregation in the presence of such project interactions.

We introduce the ELECTION ISOMORPHISM problem and a family of its approximate variants, which we refer to as dISOMORPHISM DISTANCE (d-ID) problems (where d is a metric between preference orders). We show that ELECTION ISOMORPHISM is polynomial-time solvable, and that the d-ISOMORPHISM DISTANCE problems generalize various classic rank-aggregation methods (e.g., those of Kemeny and Litvak). We establish the complexity of our problems (including their inapproximability) and provide initial experiments regarding the ability to solve them in practice.

We define and study a general framework for approval-based budgeting methods and compare certain methods within this framework by their axiomatic and computational properties. Furthermore, we visualize their behavior on certain Euclidean distributions and analyze them experimentally.

We study the problem of computing committees that perform well according to several different criteria, which are expressed as committee scoring rules. We analyze the computational complexity of computing such committees and provide an experimental evaluation of the compromise levels that can be achieved between several well-known rules, including k-Borda, SNTV, Bloc, and the Chamberlin--Courant rule.

Sybil attacks, in which fake or duplicate identities (a.k.a., Sybils) infiltrate an online community, pose a serious threat to such communities, as they might tilt community-wide decisions in their favor. While the extensive research on sybil identification may help keep the fraction of sybils in such communities low, it cannot however ensure their complete eradication. Thus, our goal here is to enhance social choice theory with effective group decision mechanisms for communities with bounded sybil penetration. Inspired by Reality-Aware Social Choice, we use the status quo as the anchor of Sybil Resilience, characterized by Sybil Safety -- the inability of sybils to change the status quo against the will of the genuine agents, and Sybil Liveness -- the ability of the genuine agents to change the status quo against the will of the sybils. We consider the social choice settings of deciding on a single proposal, on multiple proposals, and on updating a parameter. For each, we present social choice rules that are sybil-safe and, under certain conditions, satisfy sybil-liveness.

Committee scoring rules form an important class of multiwinner voting rules. As computing winning committees under such rules is generally intractable, in this paper we investigate efficient heuristics for this task. We design two novel heuristics for computing approximate results of multiwinner elections under arbitrary committee scoring rules; notably, one of these heuristics uses concepts from cooperative game theory. We then provide an experimental evaluation of our heuristics (and two others, known from the literature): we compare the scores of the committees output by our algorithms to the scores of the optimal committees, and also use the two-dimensional Euclidean domain to compare the visual representations of the outputs of our algorithms.

Voting is almost never done in void, as usually there are some relations between the alternatives on which the voters vote on. These relations shall be taken into consideration when selecting a winning committee of some given multiwinner election. As taking into account all possible relations between the alternatives is generally computationally intractable, in this paper we consider classes of alternatives; intuitively, the number of classes is significantly smaller than the number of alternatives, and thus there is some hope in reaching computational tractability. We model both intraclass relations and interclass relations by functions, which we refer to as synergy functions, and study the computational complexity of identifying the best committee, taking into account those synergy functions. Our model accommodates both positive and negative relations between alternatives; further, our efficient algorithms can also deal with a rich class of diversity wishes, which we show how to model using synergy functions.

We introduce and study the class of egalitarian variants of committee scoring rules, where instead of summing up the scores that voters assign to committees---as is done in the utilitarian variants---the score of a committee is taken to be the lowest score assigned to it by any voter. We focus on five rules, which are egalitarian analogues of SNTV, the k-Borda rule, the Chamberlin--Courant rule, the Bloc rule, and the Pessimist rule. We establish their computational complexity, provide their initial axiomatic study, and perform experiments to represent the action of these rules graphically.

In a liquid democracy, voters can either vote directly or delegate their vote to another voter of their choice. We consider ordinal elections, and study a model of liquid democracy in which voters specify partial orders and use several delegates to refine them. This flexibility, however, comes at a price, as individual rationality (in the form of transitive preferences) can no longer be guaranteed. We discuss ways to detect and overcome such complications. Based on the framework of distance rationalization, we introduce novel variants of voting rules that are tailored to the liquid democracy context.

We study the effects of campaigning, where the society is partitioned into voter clusters and a diffusion process propagates opinions in a network connecting those clusters. Our model is very general and can incorporate many campaigning actions, various partitions of the society into voter clusters, and very general diffusion processes. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that computing the cheapest campaign for rigging a given election can usually be done efficiently, even with arbitrarily-many voters.

Consider an important meeting to be held in a team-based organization. Taking availability constraints into account, an online scheduling poll is being used in order to decide upon the exact time of the meeting. Decisions are to be taken during the meeting, therefore each team would like to maximize its relative attendance (i.e. the proportional number of its team members attending the meeting). We introduce a corresponding game, where each team can declare a lower total availability in the scheduling poll in order to improve its relative attendance—the pay-off. We are especially interested in situations where teams can form coalitions. We provide an efficient algorithm that, given a coalition, finds an optimal way for each team in a coalition to improve its pay-off. In contrast, we show that deciding whether such a coalition exists is NP-hard. We also study the existence of Nash equilibria: Finding Nash equilibria for various small sizes of teams and coalitions can be done in polynomial time while it is coNP-hard if the coalition size is unbounded.

We visualize aggregate outputs of popular multiwinner voting rules — SNTV, STV, Bloc, k-Borda, Monroe, Chamberlin–Courant, and PAV — for elections generated according to the two-dimensional Euclidean model. We consider three applications of multiwinner voting, namely, parliamentary elections, portfolio/movie selection, and shortlisting, and use our results to understand which of our rules seem to be best suited for each application. In particular, we show that STV (one of the few nontrivial rules used in real high-stake elections) exhibits excellent performance, whereas the Bloc rule (also often used in practice) performs poorly.

The classical multiwinner rules are designed for particular purposes. For example, variants of k-Borda are used to find k best competitors in judging contests while the Chamberlin-Courant rule is used to select a diverse set of k products. These rules represent two extremes of the multiwinner world. At times, however, one might need to find an appropriate trade-off between these two extremes. We explore continuous transitions from k-Borda to Chamberlin-Courant and study intermediate rules.

In this article, the Program Committee of the Second Parameterized Algorithms and Computational Experiments challenge (PACE 2017) reports on the second iteration of the PACE challenge. Track A featured the Treewidth problem and Track B the Minimum Fill-In problem. Over 44 participants on 17 teams from 11 countries submitted their implementations to the competition.

We study the computational complexity of candidate control in elections with few voters, that is, we consider the parameterized complexity of candidate control in elections with respect to the number of voters as a parameter. We consider both the standard scenario of adding and deleting candidates, where one asks whether a given candidate can become a winner (or, in the destructive case, can be precluded from winning) by adding or deleting few candidates, as well as a combinatorial scenario where adding/deleting a candidate automatically means adding or deleting a whole group of candidates. Considering several fundamental voting rules, our results show that the parameterized complexity of candidate control, with the number of voters as the parameter, is much more varied than in the setting with many voters.

We study the (parameterized) complexity of Shift Bribery for multiwinner voting rules. We focus on the SNTV, Bloc, k-Borda, and Chamberlin-Courant rules, as well as on approximate variants of the Chamberlin-Courant rule, since the original rule is NP-hard to compute. We show that Shift Bribery tends to be significantly harder in the multiwinner setting than in the single-winner one by showing settings where Shift Bribery is easy in the single-winner cases, but is hard (and hard to approximate) in the multiwinner ones. We show that the non-monotonicity of those rules which are based on approximation algorithms for the Chamberlin--Courant rule sometimes affects the complexity of Shift Bribery.

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.

We study the complexity of a combinatorial variant of the Shift Bribery problem in elections. In the standard Shift Bribery problem, we are given an election where each voter has a preference order over the set of candidates and where an outside agent, the briber, can pay each voter to rank the briber's favorite candidate a given number of positions higher. The goal is to ensure the victory of the briber's preferred candidate. The combinatorial variant of the problem, introduced in this paper, models settings where it is possible to affect the position of the preferred candidate in multiple votes, either positively or negatively, with a single bribery action. This variant of the problem is particularly interesting in the context of large-scale campaign management problems (which, from the technical side, are modeled as bribery problems). We show that, in general, the combinatorial variant of the problem is highly intractable; specifically, NP-hard, hard in the parameterized sense, and hard to approximate. Nevertheless, we provide parameterized algorithms and approximation algorithms for natural restricted cases.

We study the computational complexity of candidate control in elections with few voters (that is, we take the number of voters as a parameter). We consider both the standard scenario of adding and deleting candidates, where one asks if a given candidate can become a winner (or, in the destructive case, can be precluded from winning) by adding/deleting some candidates, and a combinatorial scenario where adding/deleting a candidate automatically means adding/deleting a whole group of candidates. Our results show that the parameterized complexity of candidate control (with the number of voters as the parameter) is much more varied than in the setting with many voters.

We study a scheduling problem where two agents (each equipped with a private set of jobs) compete to perform their respective jobs on a common single machine. Each agent wants to keep the weighted sum of completion times of his jobs below a given (agent-dependent) bound. This problem is known to be NP-hard, even for quite restrictive settings of the problem parameters. We consider parameterized versions of the problem where one of the agents has a small number of jobs (and where this small number constitutes the parameter). The problem becomes much more tangible in this case, and we present three positive algorithmic results for it. Our study is complemented by showing that the general problem is NP-complete even when one agent only has a single job.