A perfect clone in an ordinal election (i.e., an election where the voters rank the candidates in a strict linear order) is a set of candidates that each voter ranks consecutively. We consider different relaxations of this notion: *independent* or *subelection clones* are sets of candidates that only some of the voters recognize as a perfect clone, whereas *approximate clones* are sets of candidates such that every voter ranks their members close to each other, but not necessarily consecutively. We establish the complexity of identifying such imperfect clones, and of partitioning the candidates into families of imperfect clones. We also study the parameterized complexity of these problems with respect to a set of natural parameters such as the number of voters, the size or the number of imperfect clones we are searching for, or their level of imperfection.

We study strategic candidate nomination by parties in elections decided by Plurality voting. Each party selects a nominee before the election, and the winner is chosen from the nominated candidates based on the voters' preferences. We introduce a new restriction on these preferences, which we call party-aligned single-peakedness: all voters agree on a common ordering of the parties along an ideological axis, but may differ in their perceptions of the positions of individual candidates within each party. The preferences of each voter are single-peaked with respect to their own axis over the candidates, which is consistent with the global ordering of the parties. We present a polynomial-time algorithm for recognizing whether a preference profile satisfies party-aligned single-peakedness. In this domain, we give polynomial-time algorithms for deciding whether a given party can become the winner under some (or all) nominations, and whether this can occur in some pure Nash equilibrium. We also prove a tight result about the guaranteed existence of pure strategy Nash equilibria for elections with up to three parties for single-peaked and party-aligned single-peaked preference profiles.

In the k-Kemeny problem, we are given an ordinal election, i.e., a collection of votes ranking the candidates from best to worst, and we seek the smallest number of swaps of adjacent candidates that ensure that the election has at most k different rankings. We study this problem for a number of structured domains, including the single-peaked, single-crossing, group-separable, and Euclidean ones. We obtain two kinds of results: (1) We show that k-Kemeny remains intractable under most of these domains, even for k=2, and (2) we use k-Kemeny to rank these domains in terms of their diversity.

In parliamentary elections, parties compete for a limited, typically fixed number of seats. Most parliaments are assembled using apportionment methods that distribute the seats based on the parties' vote counts. Common apportionment methods include divisor sequence methods (like D'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë), the largest-remainder method, and first-past-the-post. In many countries, an electoral threshold is implemented to prevent very small parties from entering the parliament. Further, several countries have apportionment systems that incorporate multiple districts. We study how computationally hard it is to change the election outcome (i.e., to increase or limit the influence of a distinguished party) by convincing a limited number of voters to change their vote. We refer to these bribery-style attacks as \emph{strategic campaigns} and study the corresponding problems in terms of their computational (both classical and parameterized) complexity. We also run extensive experiments on real-world election data and study the effectiveness of optimal campaigns, in particular as opposed to using heuristic bribing strategies and with respect to the influence of the threshold and the influence of the number of districts. For apportionment elections with threshold, finally, we propose -- as an alternative to the standard top-choice mode -- the second-chance mode where voters of parties below the threshold receive a second chance to vote for another party, and we establish computational complexity results also in this setting.

The map of elections framework is a methodology for visualizing and analyzing election datasets. So far, the framework was restricted to elections that have equal numbers of candidates, equal numbers of voters, and where all the (ordinal) votes rank all the candidates. We extend it to the case of elections of different sizes, where the votes can be top-truncated. We use our results to present a visualization of a large fragment of the Preflib database.

We form a “map of tournaments” by adapting the map framework from the world of elections. By a tournament we mean a complete directed graph where the nodes are the players and an edge points from a winner of a game to the loser (with no ties allowed). A map is a set of tournaments represented as points on a 2D plane, so that their Euclidean distances resemble the distances computed according to a given measure. We identify useful distance measures, discuss ways of generating random tournaments (and compare them to several real-life ones), and show how the maps are helpful in visualizing experimental results (also for knockout tournaments).

We study the complexity of candidate control in participatory budgeting elections. The goal of constructive candidate control is to ensure that a given candidate wins by either adding or deleting candidates from the election (in the destructive setting, the goal is to prevent a given candidate from winning). We show that such control problems are NP-hard to solve for many participatory budgeting voting rules, including Phragmén and Equal-Shares, but there are natural cases with polynomial-time algorithms. We also argue that control by deleting candidates is a useful tool for assessing the performance (or, strength) of initially losing projects, and we support this view with experiments on real-life PB instances.

We study strategic behavior of project proposers in the context of approval-based participatory budgeting (PB). In our model we assume that the votes are fixed and known and the proposers want to set as high project prices as possible, provided that their projects get selected and the prices are not below the minimum costs of their delivery. We study the existence of pure Nash equilibria (NE) in such games, focusing on the AV/Cost, Phragmen, and Method of Equal Shares rules. We also provide an experimental study of cost selection on real-life PB election data.

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.

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.

We study extensions of the Election Isomorphism problem, focused on the existence of isomorphic subelections. Specifically, we propose the Subelection Isomorphism and the Maximum Common Subelection problems and study their computational complexity and approximability. Using our problems in experiments, we provide some insights into the nature of several statistical models of elections

We study the properties of elections that have a given position matrix (in such elections each candidate is ranked on each position by a number of voters specified in the matrix). We show that counting elections that generate a given position matrix is #P-complete. Consequently, sampling such elections uniformly at random seems challenging and we propose a simpler algorithm, without hard guarantees. Next, we consider the problem of testing if a given matrix can be implemented by an election with a certain structure (such as single-peakedness or group-separability). Finally, we consider the problem of checking if a given position matrix can be implemented by an election with a Condorcet winner. We complement our theoretical findings with experiments.

The Mallows model is a popular distribution for ranked data. We empirically and theoretically analyze how the properties of rankings sampled from the Mallows model change when increasing the number of alternatives. We find that real-world data behaves differently from the Mallows model, yet is in line with its recent variant proposed by Boehmer et al. [IJCAI ’21]. As part of our study, we issue several warnings about using the classic Mallows model. For instance, we find that one should be extremely careful when using the Mallows model to generate data for experiments with a varying number of alternatives, as observed trends in such experiments might be due to the changing nature of the generated data.

We consider the notions of agreement, diversity, and polarization in ordinal elections (that is, in elections where voters rank the candidates). While (computational) social choice offers good measures of agreement between the voters, such measures for the other two notions are lacking. We attempt to rectify this issue by designing appropriate measures, providing means of their (approximate) computation, and arguing that they, indeed, capture diversity and polarization well. In particular, we present "maps of preference orders" that highlight relations between the votes in a given election and which help in making arguments about their nature.

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.

In this paper, we experimentally compare major approval based multiwinner voting rules. To this end, we define a measure of similarity between two equal sized committees subject to a given election. Using synthetic elections coming from several distributions, we analyze how similar are the committees provided by prominent voting rules. Our results can be visualized as maps of voting rules, which provide a counterpoint to a purely axiomatic classification of voting rules. The strength of our proposed method is its independence from preimposed classifications (such as the satisfaction of concrete axioms), and that it indeed offers a much finer distinction than the current state of axiomatic analysis.

We study the complexity of deciding if there is a tie in a given approval-based multiwinner election, as well as the complexity of counting tied winning committees. We consider a family of Thiele rules, their greedy variants, Phragmen's sequential rule, and Method of Equal Shares. For most cases, our problems are computationally hard, but for sequential rules we find an FPT algorithm for discovering ties (parameterized by the committee size). We also show experimentally that in elections of moderate size ties are quite frequent.

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

Justified representation (JR) is a standard notion of representation in multiwinner approval voting. Not only does a JR committee always exist, but previous work has also shown through experiments that the JR condition can typically be fulfilled by groups of fewer than k candidates, where k is the target size of the committee. In this paper, we study such groups—known as n/k-justifying groups—both theoretically and empirically. First, we show that under the impartial culture model, n/k-justifying groups of size less than k/2 are likely to exist, which implies that the number of JR committees is usually large. We then present efficient approximation algorithms that compute a small n/k-justifying group for any given instance, and a polynomial-time exact algorithm when the instance admits a tree representation. In addition, we demonstrate that small n/k-justifying groups can often be useful for obtaining a gender-balanced JR committee even though the problem is NP-hard.

In multiwinner approval voting, the goal is to select k-member committees based on voters' approval ballots. A well-studied concept of proportionality in this context is the justified representation (JR) axiom, which demands that no large cohesive group of voters remains unrepresented. However, the JR axiom may conflict with other desiderata, such as coverage (maximizing the number of voters who approve at least one committee member) or social welfare (maximizing the number of approvals obtained by committee members). In this work, we investigate the impact of imposing the JR axiom (as well as the more demanding EJR axiom) on social welfare and coverage. Our approach is threefold: we derive worst-case bounds on the loss of welfare/coverage that is caused by imposing JR, study the computational complexity of finding 'good' committees that provide JR (obtaining a hardness result, an approximation algorithm, and an exact algorithm for one-dimensional preferences), and examine this setting empirically on several synthetic datasets.

We study extensions of the Election Isomorphism problem, focused on the existence of isomorphic subelections. Specifically, we propose the Subelection Isomorphism and the Maximum Common Subelection problems and study their computational complexity and approximability. Using our problems in experiments, we provide some insights into the nature of several statistical models of elections.

Over the last few years, researchers have put significant effort into understanding of the notion of proportional representation in committee election. In particular, recently they have proposed the notion of proportionality degree. We study the complexity of computing committees with a given proportionality degree and of testing if a given committee provides a particular one. This way, we complement recent studies that mostly focused on the notion of (extended) justified representation. We also study the problems of testing if a cohesive group of a given size exists and of counting such groups.

Motivated by putting empirical work based on (synthetic) election data on a more solid mathematical basis, we analyze six distances among elections, including, e.g., the challenging-to-compute but very precise swap distance and the distance used to form the so-called map of elections. Among the six, the latter seems to strike the best balance between its computational complexity and expressiveness.

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.

We use the "map of elections" approach of Szufa et al. (AAMAS 2020) to analyze several well-known vote distributions. For each of them, we give an explicit formula or an efficient algorithm for computing its frequency matrix, which captures the probability that a given candidate appears in a given position in a sampled vote. We use these matrices to draw the "skeleton map" of distributions, evaluate its robustness, and analyze its properties. We further develop a general and unified framework for learning the distribution of real-world preferences using the frequency matrices of established vote distributions.

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 approval-based committee elections for the case where the voters' preferences come from a 2D-Euclidean model. We consider two main issues: First, we ask for the complexity of computing election results. Second, we evaluate election outcomes experimentally, following the visualization technique of Elkind et al., (AAAI-2017). Regarding the first issue, we find that many NP-hard rules remain intractable for 2D-Euclidean elections. For the second one, we observe that the behavior and nature of many rules strongly depends on the exact protocol for choosing the approved candidates.

We study the parameterized complexity of counting variants of Swap- and Shift-Bribery, focusing on the parameterizations by the number of swaps and the number of voters. Facing several computational hardness results, using sampling we show experimentally that Swap-Bribery offers a new approach to the robustness analysis of elections.

In their AAMAS 2020 paper, Szufa et al. presented a "map of elections" that visualizes a set of 800 elections generated from various statistical cultures. While similar elections are grouped together on this map, there is no obvious interpretation of the elections' positions. We provide such an interpretation by introducing four canonical “extreme” elections, acting as a compass on the map. We use them to analyze both a dataset provided by Szufa et al. and a number of real-life elections. In effect, we find a new parameterization of the Mallows model, based on measuring the expected swap distance from the central preference order, and show that it is useful for capturing real-life scenarios.

We extend the work of Skowron et al. (AIJ, 2016) by considering the parameterized complexity of the following problem. We are given a set of items and a set of agents, where each agent assigns an integer utility value to each item. The goal is to find a set of k items that these agents would collectively use. For each such collective set of items, each agent provides a score that can be described using an OWA (ordered weighted average) operator and we seek a set with the highest total score. We focus on the parameterization by the number of agents and we find numerous fixed-parameter tractability results (however, we also find some W[1]-hardness results). It turns out that most of our algorithms even apply to the setting where each agent has an integer weight.

Obraztsova et al. (2013) have recently proposed an intriguing convexity axiom for voting rules. This axiom imposes conditions on the shape of the sets of elections with a given candidate as a winner. However, this new axiom is both too weak and too strong: it is too weak because it defines a set to be convex if for any two elements of the set some shortest path between them lies within the set, whereas the standard definition of convexity requires all shortest paths between two elements to lie within the set, and it is too strong because common voting rules do not satisfy this axiom. In this paper, we (1) propose several families of voting rules that are convex in the sense of Obraztsova et al.; (2) put forward a weaker notion of convexity that is satisfied by most common voting rules; (3) prove impossibility results for a variant of this definition that considers all, rather than some shortest paths.

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.

In parliamentary elections, parties compete for a limited, typically fixed number of seats. We study the complexity of the following bribery-style problem: Given the distribution of votes among the parties, what is the smallest number of voters that need to be convinced to vote for our party, so that it gets a desired number of seats. We also run extensive experiments on real-world election data and measure the effectiveness of our method.

We analyze the complexity of several NP-hard election-related problems under the assumptions that the voters have group-separable preferences. We show that under this assumption our problems typically remain NP-hard, but we provide more efficient algorithms if additionally the clone decomposition tree is of moderate height.

In the SHIFT-BRIBERY problem we are given an election, a preferred candidate, and the costs of shifting this preferred candidate up the voters’ preference orders. The goal is to find such a set of shifts that ensures that the preferred candidate wins the election. We give the first polynomial-time approximation scheme for the case of positional scoring rules, and for the Copeland rule we show strong inapproximability results.

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 provide an experimental study of committees that achieve (proportional/extended) justified representation (JR/PJR/EJR). In particular, we ask how many such committees exist and how varied they are in terms of voter satisfaction and coverage. We find that under many natural distributions of preferences a large fraction of randomly selected JR committees also provide PJR and EJR. Further, we find that the sets of JR committees for our elections are very varied and include both high-quality ones and not-so-appealing ones.

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.

We provide the first polynomial-time algorithm for recognizing if a profile of (possibly weak) preference orders is top-monotonic. Top-monotonicity is a generalization of the notions of single-peakedness and single-crossingness, defined by Barbera and Moreno. Top-monotonic profiles always have weak Condorcet winners and satisfy a variant of the median voter theorem. Our algorithm proceeds by reducing the recognition problem to the SAT-2CNF problem.

We develop a model of multiwinner elections that combines performance-based measures of the quality of the committee (such as, e.g., Borda scores of the committee members) with diversity constraints. Specifically, we assume that the candidates have certain attributes (such as being a male or a female, being junior or senior, etc.) and the goal is to elect a committee that, on the one hand, has as high a score regarding a given performance measure, but that, on the other hand, meets certain requirements (e.g., of the form "at least 30% of the committee members are junior candidates and at least 40% are females"). We analyze the computational complexity of computing winning committees in this model, obtaining polynomial-time algorithms (exact and approximate) and NP-hardness results. We focus on several natural classes of voting rules and diversity constraints.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We study two notions of stability in multiwinner elections that are based on the Condorcet criterion. The first notion was introduced by Gehrlein and is majoritarian in spirit. The second one, local stability, is introduced in this paper, and focuses on voter representation. The goal of this paper is to explore these two notions, their implications on restricted domains, and the computational complexity of rules that are consistent with them.

Committee scoring rules are a class of voting rules used to select sets of candidates based on the preferences of the voters. The goal of this paper is to present this class and to invite researchers to study its properties (computational and axiomatic alike).

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.

We provide the first polynomial-time algorithm for recognizing if a profile of (possibly weak) preference orders is top-monotonic. Top-monotonicity is a generalization of the notions of single-peakedness and single-crossingness, defined by Barbera and Moreno. Top-monotonic profiles always have weak Condorcet winners and satisfy a variant of the median voter theorem. Our algorithm proceeds by reducing the recognition problem to the SAT-2CNF problem.

Election control problems model situations where some entity (traditionally called the election chair) wants to ensure some candidate’s victory by either adding or deleting candidates or voters. The complexity of deciding if such control actions can be successful is well-studied for many typical voting rules and, usually, such control problems are $$\mathrm {NP}$$ -complete. However, Faliszewski et al. (Inf Comput 209(2):89–107, 2011) have shown that many control problems become polynomial-time solvable when we consider single-peaked elections. In this paper we show that a similar phenomenon applies to the case of single-crossing elections. Specifically, we consider the complexity of control by adding/deleting candidates/voters under plurality, Condorcet, and approval voting. For each of these control types and each of the rules, we show that if the control type is $$\mathrm {NP}$$ -complete in general, it becomes polynomial-time solvable for single-crossing elections.

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 consider the problem of winner determination under Chamberlin--Courant's multiwinner voting rule with approval utilities. This problem is equivalent to the well-known NP-complete MaxCover problem and, so, the best polynomial-time approximation algorithm for it has approximation ratio 1 - 1/e. We show exponential-time/FPT approximation algorithms that, on one hand, achieve arbitrarily good approximation ratios and, on the other hand, have running times much better than known exact algorithms. We focus on the cases where the voters have to approve of at most/at least a given number of candidates.

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 the complexity of deciding if a given profile of incomplete votes (i.e., a profile of partial orders over a given set of alternatives) can be extended to a single-crossing profile of complete votes (total orders). This problem models settings where we have partial knowledge regarding voters' preferences and we would like to understand whether the given preference profile may be single-crossing. We show that this problem admits a polynomial-time algorithm when the order of votes is fixed and the input profile consists of top orders, but becomes NP-complete if we are allowed to permute the votes and the input profile consists of weak orders or independent-pairs orders. Also, we identify a number of practical special cases of both problems that admit polynomial-time algorithms.

We consider the problem of winner determination under Chamberlin--Courant's multiwinner voting rule with approval utilities. This problem is equivalent to the well-known NP-complete MaxCover problem (i.e., a version of the SetCover problem where we aim to cover as many elements as possible) and, so, the best polynomial-time approximation algorithm for it has approximation ratio 1 - 1/e. We show exponential-time/FPT approximation algorithms that, on one hand, achieve arbitrarily good approximation ratios and, on the other hand, have running times much better than known exact algorithms. We focus on the cases where the voters have to approve of at most/at least a given number of candidates.

We consider the following problem: There is a set of items (e.g., movies) and a group of agents (e.g., passengers on a plane); each agent has some intrinsic utility for each of the items. Our goal is to pick a set of K items that maximize the total derived utility of all the agents (i.e., in our example we are to pick K movies that we put on the plane's entertainment system). However, the actual utility that an agent derives from a given item is only a fraction of its intrinsic one, and this fraction depends on how the agent ranks the item among the chosen, available, ones. We provide a formal specification of the model and provide concrete examples and settings where it is applicable. We show that the problem is hard in general, but we show a number of tractability results for its natural special cases.

Although manipulation and bribery have been extensively studied under weighted voting, there has been almost no work done on election control under weighted voting. This is unfortunate, since weighted voting appears in many important natural settings. In this paper, we study the complexity of controlling the outcome of weighted elections through adding and deleting voters. We obtain polynomial-time algorithms, NP-completeness results, and for many NP-complete cases, approximation algorithms. In particular, for scoring rules we completely characterize the complexity of weighted voter control. Our work shows that for quite a few important cases, either polynomial-time exact algorithms or polynomial-time approximation algorithms exist.

In the Shift Bribery problem, we are given an election (based on preference orders), a preferred candidate p, and a budget. The goal is to ensure that p wins by shifting p higher in some voters' preference orders. However, each such shift request comes at a price (depending on the voter and on the extent of the shift) and we must not exceed the given budget. We study the parameterized computational complexity of Shift Bribery with respect to a number of parameters (pertaining to the nature of the solution sought and the size of the election) and several classes of price functions. When we parameterize Shift Bribery by the number of affected voters, then for each of our voting rules (Borda, Maximin, Copeland) the problem is W[2]-hard. If, instead, we parameterize by the number of positions by which p is shifted in total, then the problem is fixed-parameter tractable for Borda and Maximin, and is W[1]-hard for Copeland. If we parameterize by the budget for the cost of shifting, then the results depend on the price function class. We also show that Shift Bribery tends to be tractable when parameterized by the number of voters, but that the results for the number of candidates are more enigmatic.

We investigate elections that are simultaneously single-peaked and single-crossing (SPSC). We show that the domain of 1-dimensional Euclidean elections (where voters and candidates are points on the real line, and each voter prefers the candidates that are close to her to the ones that are further away) is a proper subdomain of the SPSC domain, by constructing an election that is single-peaked and single-crossing, but not 1-Euclidean. We then establish a connection between narcissistic elections (where each candidate is ranked first by at least one voter), single-peaked elections and single-crossing elections, by showing that an election is SPSC if and only if it can be obtained from a narcissistic single-crossing election by deleting voters. We show two applications of our characterization.

Election control problems model situations where some entity (traditionally called the election chair) wants to ensure some agent's victory by either adding or deleting candidates or voters. The complexity of deciding if such control actions can be successful is well-studied for many typical voting rules and, usually, such control problems are NP-complete. However, Faliszewski et al. [16] have shown that many control problems become polynomial-time solvable when we consider single-peaked elections. In this paper we show that a similar phenomenon applies to the case of single-crossing elections. Specifically, we consider the complexity of control by adding/deleting candidates/voters under Plurality and Condorcet voting. For each of these control types and each of the rules, we show that if the control type is NP-complete in general, it becomes polynomial-time solvable for single-crossing elections.

We consider the problem of predicting winners in elections given complete knowledge about all possible candidates, all possible voters (together with their preferences), but in the case where it is uncertain either which candidates exactly register for the election or which voters cast their votes. Under reasonable assumptions our problems reduce to counting variants of election control problems. We either give polynomial-time algorithms or prove #P-completeness results for counting variants of control by adding/deleting candidates/voters for Plurality, k-Approval, Approval, Condorcet, and Maximin voting rules.

In elections, a set of candidates ranked consecutively (though possibly in different order) by all voters is called a clone set, and its members are called clones. A clone structure is the family of all clone sets of a given election. In this paper we study properties of clone structures. In particular, we give an axiomatic characterization of clone structures, show that they are organized hierarchically, and analyze clone structures in single-peaked and single-crossing elections. We describe a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a minimal collection of clones that need to be collapsed for an election to become single-peaked, and we show that this problem is NP-hard for single-crossing elections.

The conventional model of coalition formation considers every possible subset of agents as a potential coalition. However, in many real-world applications, there are inherent constraints on feasible coalitions: for instance, certain agents may be prohibited from being in the same coalition, or the coalition structure may be required to consist of coalitions of the same size. In this paper, we present the first systematic study of constrained coalition formation (CCF). We propose a general framework for this problem, and identify an important class of CCF settings, where the constraints specify which groups of agents should/should not work together. We describe a procedure that transforms such constraints into a structured input that allows coalition formation algorithms to identify, without any redundant computations, all the feasible coalitions. We then use this procedure to develop an algorithm for generating an optimal (welfare-maximizing) constrained coalition structure, and show that it outperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches by several orders of magnitude.

Approval-like voting rules, such as Sincere-Strategy Preference-Based Approval voting (SP-AV), the Bucklin rule (an adaptive variant of k-Approval voting), and the Fallback rule (an adaptive variant of SP-AV) have many desirable properties: for example, they are easy to understand and encourage the candidates to choose electoral platforms that have a broad appeal. In this paper, we investigate both classic and parameterized computational complexity of electoral campaign management under such rules. We focus on two methods that can be used to promote a given candidate: asking voters to move this candidate upwards in their preference order or asking them to change the number of candidates they approve of. We show that finding an optimal campaign management strategy of the first type is easy for both Bucklin and Fallback. In contrast, the second method is computationally hard even if the degree to which we need to affect the votes is small. Nevertheless, we identify a large class of scenarios that admit a fixed-parameter tractable algorithm.

Many electoral bribery, control, and manipulation problems (which we will refer to in general as "manipulative actions" problems) are NP-hard in the general case. It has recently been noted that many of these problems fall into polynomial time if the electorate is single-peaked (i.e., is polarized along some axis/issue). However, real-world electorates are not truly single-peaked. There are usually some mavericks, and so real-world electorates tend to merely be nearly single-peaked. This paper studies the complexity of manipulative-action algorithms for elections over nearly single-peaked electorates, for various notions of nearness and various election systems. We provide instances where even one maverick jumps the manipulative-action complexity up to NP-hardness, but we also provide many instances where a reasonable number of mavericks can be tolerated without increasing the manipulative-action complexity.

We consider the problem of manipulating elections by cloning candidates. In our model, a manipulator can replace each candidate c by several clones, i.e., new candidates that are so similar to c that each voter simply replaces c in his vote with a block of these new candidates, ranked consecutively. The outcome of the resulting election may then depend onthenumberofclonesaswellasonhoweachvoterordersthecloneswithintheblock. We formalize what it means for a cloning manipulation to be successful (which turns out to be a surprisingly delicate issue), and, for a number of common voting rules, characterize the preference profiles for which a successful cloning manipulation exists. We also consider the model where there is a cost associated with producing each clone, and study the complexity of finding a minimum-cost cloning manipulation. Finally, we compare cloning with two related problems: the problem of control by adding candidates and the problem of possible (co)winners when new alternatives can join. 1.

In 1992, Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick opened the study of control attacks on elections---attempts to improve the election outcome by such actions as adding/deleting candidates or voters. That work has led to many results on how algorithms can be used to find attacks on elections and how complexity-theoretic hardness results can be used as shields against attacks. However, all the work in this line has assumed that the attacker employs just a single type of attack. In this paper, we model and study the case in which the attacker launches a multipronged (i.e., multimode) attack. We do so to more realistically capture the richness of real-life settings. For example, an attacker might simultaneously try to suppress some voters, attract new voters into the election, and introduce a spoiler candidate. Our model provides a unified framework for such varied attacks. By constructing polynomial-time multiprong attack algorithms we prove that for various election systems even such concerted, flexible attacks can be perfectly planned in deterministic polynomial time.

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.

We consider the problem of manipulating elections via cloning candidates. In our model, a manipulator can replace each candidate c by one or more clones, i.e., new candidates that are so similar to c that each voter simply replaces c in his vote with the block of c's clones. The outcome of the resulting election may then depend on how each voter orders the clones within the block. We formalize what it means for a cloning manipulation to be successful (which turns out to be a surprisingly delicate issue), and, for a number of prominent voting rules, characterize the preference profiles for which a successful cloning manipulation exists. We also consider the model where there is a cost associated with producing each clone, and study the complexity of finding a minimum-cost cloning manipulation. Finally, we compare cloning with the related problem of control via adding candidates.

We explore the relationship between two approaches to rationalizing voting rules: the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) framework originally suggested by Condorcet and recently studied by Conitzer, Rognlie, and Xia, and the distance rationalizability (DR) framework of Elkind, Faliszewski, and Slinko. The former views voting as an attempt to reconstruct the correct ordering of the candidates given noisy estimates (i.e., votes), while the latter explains voting as search for the nearest consensus outcome. We provide conditions under which an MLE interpretation of a voting rule coincides with its DR interpretation, and classify a number of classic voting rules, such as Kemeny, Plurality, Borda and Single Transferable Vote (STV), according to how well they fit each of these frameworks. The classification we obtain is more precise than the ones that result from using MLE or DR alone: indeed, we show that the MLE approach can be used to guide our search for a more refined notion of distance rationalizability and vice versa.

In voting theory, bribery is a form of manipulative behavior in which an external actor (the briber) offers to pay the voters to change their votes in order to get her preferred candidate elected. We investigate a model of bribery where the price of each vote depends on the amount of change that the voter is asked to implement. Specifically, in our model the briber can change a voter’s preference list by paying for a sequence of swaps of consecutive candidates. Each swap may have a different price; the price of a bribery is the sum of the prices of all swaps that it involves. We prove complexity results for this model, which we call swap bribery , for a broad class of voting rules, including variants of approval and k -approval, Borda, Copeland, and maximin. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The concept of distance rationalizability has several applications within social choice. In the context of voting, it allows one to define ("rationalize") voting rules via a consensus class (roughly, a set of elections in which it is obvious who should win) and a distance function: namely, a candidate is said to be an election winner if it is ranked first in one of the nearest (with respect to the given distance) consensus elections. It is known that many classic voting rules can be represented in this manner. In this paper, we provide new results on distance rationalizability of several well-known voting rules such as all scoring rules, Approval, Young's rule and Maximin. We also show that a previously published proof of distance rationalizability of Young's rule is incorrect: the consensus notion and the distance function used in that proof give rise to a voting rule that is similar to---but distinct from---the Young's rule. Finally, we demonstrate that some voting rules cannot be rationalized via certain notions of consensus. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first non-distance-rationalizability results for voting rules.

Much work has been devoted, during the past twenty years, to using complexity to protect elections from manipulation and control. Many results have been obtained showing NP-hardness shields, and recently there has been much focus on whether such worst-case hardness protections can be bypassed by frequently correct heuristics or by approximations. This paper takes a very different approach: We argue that when electorates follow the canonical political science model of societal preferences the complexity shield never existed in the first place. In particular, we show that for electorates having single-peaked preferences, many existing NP-hardness results on manipulation and control evaporate.

We study the complexity of influencing elections through bribery: How computationally complex is it for an external actor to determine whether by paying certain voters to change their preferences a specified candidate can be made the election’s winner? We study this problem for election systems as varied as scoring protocols and Dodgson voting, and in a variety of settings regarding homogeneous-vs.-nonhomogeneous electorate bribability, bounded-size-vs.-arbitrary-sized candidate sets, weighted-vs.-unweighted voters, and succinct-vs.-nonsuccinct input specification. We obtain both polynomial-time bribery algorithms and proofs of the intractability of bribery, and indeed our results show that the complexity of bribery is extremely sensitive to the setting. For example, we find settings in which bribery is NP-complete but manipulation (by voters) is in P, and we find settings in which bribing weighted voters is NP-complete but bribing voters with individual bribe thresholds is in P. For the broad class of elections (including plurality, Borda, k-approval, and veto) known as scoring protocols, we prove a dichotomy result for bribery of weighted voters: We find a simple-to-evaluate condition that classifies every case as either NP-complete or in P.

Control and bribery are settings in which an external agent seeks to influence the outcome of an election. Constructive control of elections refers to attempts by an agent to, via such actions as addition/deletion/partition of candidates or voters, ensure that a given candidate wins. Destructive control refers to attempts by an agent to, via the same actions, preclude a given candidate's victory. An election system in which an agent can sometimes affect the result and it can be determined in polynomial time on which inputs the agent can succeed is said to be vulnerable to the given type of control. An election system in which an agent can sometimes affect the result, yet in which it is NP-hard to recognize the inputs on which the agent can succeed, is said to be resistant to the given type of control. Aside from election systems with an NP-hard winner problem, the only systems previously known to be resistant to all the standard control types were highly artificial election systems created by hybridization. This paper studies a parameterized version of Copeland voting, denoted by Copeland^\alpha, where the parameter \alpha is a rational number between 0 and 1 that specifies how ties are valued in the pairwise comparisons of candidates. In every previously studied constructive or destructive control scenario, we determine which of resistance or vulnerability holds for Copeland^\alpha for each rational \alpha, 0 \leq \alpha \leq 1. In particular, we prove that Copeland^{0.5}, the system commonly referred to as ``Copeland voting,'' provides full resistance to constructive control, and we prove the same for Copeland^\alpha, for all rational \alpha, 0 < \alpha < 1. Among systems with a polynomial-time winner problem, Copeland voting is the first natural election system proven to have full resistance to constructive control. In addition, we prove that both Copeland^0 and Copeland^1 (interestingly, Copeland^1 is an election system developed by the thirteenth-century mystic Llull) are resistant to all standard types of constructive control other than one variant of addition of candidates. Moreover, we show that for each rational \alpha, 0 \leq \alpha \leq 1, Copeland^\alpha voting is fully resistant to bribery attacks, and we establish fixed-parameter tractability of bounded-case control for Copeland^\alpha. We also study Copeland^\alpha elections under more flexible models such as microbribery and extended control, we integrate the potential irrationality of voter preferences into many of our results, and we prove our results in both the unique-winner model and the nonunique-winner model. Our vulnerability results for microbribery are proven via a novel technique involving min-cost network flow.