An important - but very demanding - property in collective decision-making is strategyproofness, which requires that voters cannot benefit from submitting insincere preferences. Gibbard (1977) has shown that only rather unattractive rules are strategyproof, even when allowing for randomization. However, Gibbard's theorem is based on a rather strong interpretation of strategyproofness, which deems a manipulation successful if it increases the voter's expected utility for at least one utility function consistent with his ordinal preferences. In this paper, we study weak strategyproofness, which deems a manipulation successful if it increases the voter's expected utility for all utility functions consistent with his ordinal preferences. We show how to systematically design attractive, weakly strategyproof social decision schemes (SDSs) and explore their limitations for both strict and weak preferences. In particular, for strict preferences, we show that there are weakly strategyproof SDSs that are either ex post efficient or Condorcet-consistent, while neither even-chance SDSs nor pairwise SDSs satisfy both properties and weak strategyproofness at the same time. By contrast, for the case of weak preferences, we discuss two sweeping impossibility results that preclude the existence of appealing weakly strategyproof SDSs.

We study the problem of aggregating distributions, such as budget proposals, into a collective distribution. An ideal aggregation mechanism would be Pareto efficient, strategyproof, and fair. Most previous work assumes that agents evaluate budgets according to the l1 distance to their ideal budget. We investigate and compare different models from the larger class of star-shaped utility functions---a multi-dimensional generalization of single-peaked preferences. For the case of two alternatives, we extend existing results by proving that under very general assumptions, the uniform phantom mechanism is the only strategyproof mechanism that satisfies proportionality---a minimal notion of fairness introduced by Freeman et al. [2021]. Moving to the case of more than two alternatives, we establish sweeping impossibilities for l1 and l∞ disutilities: no mechanism satisfies efficiency, strategyproofness, and proportionality. We then propose a new kind of star-shaped utilities based on evaluating budgets by the ratios of shares between a given budget and an ideal budget. For these utilities, efficiency, strategyproofness, and fairness become compatible. In particular, we prove that the mechanism that maximizes the Nash product of individual utilities is characterized by group-strategyproofness and a core-based fairness condition.

Coalition formation is a central concern in multiagent systems. A common desideratum for coalition structures is stability, defined by the absence of beneficial deviations of single agents. Such deviations require an agent to improve her utility by joining another coalition. On top of that, the feasibility of deviations may also be restricted by demanding consent of agents in the welcoming and/or the abandoned coalition. While most of the literature focuses on deviations constrained by unanimous consent, we also study consent decided by majority vote and introduce two new stability notions that can be seen as local variants of another solution concept called popularity. We investigate stability in additively separable hedonic games by pinpointing boundaries to computational complexity depending on the type of consent and friend-oriented utility restrictions. The latter restrictions shed new light on well-studied classes of games based on the appreciation of friends or the aversion to enemies. Many of our positive results follow from a new combinatorial observation that we call the Deviation Lemma and that we leverage to prove the convergence of simple and natural single-agent dynamics under fairly general conditions. Our negative results, in particular, resolve the complexity of contractual Nash stability in additively separable hedonic games.

We study whether Pareto-optimal stable matchings can be reached via pairwise swaps in one-to-one matching markets with initial assignments. We consider housing markets, marriage markets, and roommate markets as well as three different notions of swap rationality. Our main results are as follows. While it can be efficiently determined whether a Pareto-optimal stable matching can be reached when defining swaps via blocking pairs, checking whether this is the case for all such sequences is computationally intractable. When defining swaps such that all involved agents need to be better off, even deciding whether a Pareto-optimal stable matching can be reached via some sequence is intractable. This confirms and extends a conjecture made by Damamme, Beynier, Chevaleyre, and Maudet (2015) who have shown that convergence to a Pareto-optimal matching is guaranteed in housing markets with single-peaked preferences. We prove that in marriage and roommate markets, single-peakedness is not sufficient for this to hold, but the stronger restriction of one-dimensional Euclidean preferences is.

Charity is typically done either by individual donors, who donate money to the charities that they support, or by centralized organizations such as governments or municipalities, which collect the individual contributions and distribute them among a set of charities. On the one hand, individual charity respects the will of the donors but may be inefficient due to a lack of coordination. On the other hand, centralized charity is potentially more efficient but may ignore the will of individual donors.

The formation of stable coalitions is a central concern in multiagent systems. A considerable stream of research defines stability via the absence of beneficial deviations by single agents. Such deviations require an agent to improve her utility by joining another coalition while possibly imposing further restrictions on the consent of the agents in the welcoming as well as the abandoned coalition. While most of the literature focuses on unanimous consent, we also study consent decided by majority vote, and introduce two new stability notions that can be seen as local variants of popularity. We investigate these notions in additively separable hedonic games by pinpointing boundaries to computational complexity depending on the type of consent and restrictions on the utility functions. The latter restrictions shed new light on well-studied classes of games based on the appreciation of friends or the aversion to enemies. Many of our positive results follow from the Deviation Lemma, a general combinatorial observation, which can be leveraged to prove the convergence of simple and natural single-agent dynamics under fairly general conditions.

Social decision schemes (SDSs) map the preferences of individual voters over multiple alternatives to a probability distribution over the alternatives. In order to study properties such as efficiency, strategyproofness, and participation for SDSs, preferences over alternatives are typically lifted to preferences over lotteries using the notion of stochastic dominance (SD). However, requiring strategyproofness or strict participation with respect to this preference extension only leaves room for rather undesirable SDSs such as random dictatorships. Hence, we focus on the natural but little understood pairwise comparison (PC) preference extension, which postulates that one lottery is preferred to another if the former is more likely to return a preferred outcome. In particular, we settle three open questions raised by Brandt in Rolling the dice: Recent results in probabilistic social choice (2017): (i) there is no Condorcet-consistent SDS that satisfies PC-strategyproofness; (ii) there is no anonymous and neutral SDS that satisfies PC-efficiency and PC-strategyproofness; and (iii) there is no anonymous and neutral SDS that satisfies PC-efficiency and strict PC-participation. All three impossibilities require m>=4 alternatives and turn into possibilities when m<=3.

An important aspect of multi-agent systems concerns the formation of coalitions that are stable or optimal in some well-defined way. The notion of popularity has recently received a lot of attention in this context. A partition is popular if there is no other partition in which more agents are better off than worse off. In this paper, we study popularity, strong popularity, and mixed popularity (which is particularly attractive because existence is guaranteed by the Minimax Theorem) in a variety of coalition formation settings. Extending previous work on marriage games, we show that mixed popular partitions in roommate games can be found efficiently via linear programming and a separation oracle. This approach is quite universal, leading to efficient algorithms for verifying whether a given partition is popular and for finding strongly popular partitions (resolving an open problem). By contrast, we prove that both problems become computationally intractable when moving from coalitions of size 2 to coalitions of size 3, even when preferences are strict and globally ranked. Moreover, we show that finding popular, strongly popular, and mixed popular partitions in symmetric additively separable hedonic games and symmetric fractional hedonic games is NP-hard. Together, these results indicate strong boundaries to the tractability of popularity in both ordinal and cardinal models of hedonic games.

Social choice functions (SCFs) map the preferences of a group of agents over some set of alternatives to a non-empty subset of alternatives. The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem has shown that only extremely restrictive SCFs are strategyproof when there are more than two alternatives. For set-valued SCFs, or so-called social choice correspondences, the situation is less clear. There are miscellaneous -- mostly negative -- results using a variety of strategyproofness notions and additional requirements. The simple and intuitive notion of Kelly-strategyproofness has turned out to be particularly compelling because it is weak enough to still allow for positive results. For example, the Pareto rule is strategyproof even when preferences are weak, and a number of attractive SCFs (such as the top cycle, the uncovered set, and the essential set) are strategyproof for strict preferences. In this paper, we show that, for weak preferences, only indecisive SCFs can satisfy strategyproofness. In particular, (i) every strategyproof rank-based SCF violates Pareto-optimality, (ii) every strategyproof support-based SCF (which generalize Fishburn's C2 SCFs) that satisfies Pareto-optimality returns at least one most preferred alternative of every voter, and (iii) every strategyproof non-imposing SCF returns the Condorcet loser in at least one profile. We also discuss the consequences of these results for randomized social choice.

The formal study of coalition formation in multiagent systems is typically realized using so-called hedonic games, which originate from economic theory. The main focus of this branch of research has been on the existence and the computational complexity of deciding the existence of coalition structures that satisfy various stability criteria. The actual process of forming coalitions based on individual behavior has received little attention. In this paper, we study the convergence of simple dynamics leading to stable partitions in a variety of classes of hedonic games, including anonymous, dichotomous, fractional, and hedonic diversity games. The dynamics we consider is based on individual stability: an agent will join another coalition if she is better off and no member of the welcoming coalition is worse off. We identify conditions for convergence, provide elaborate counterexamples of existence of individually stable partitions, and study the computational complexity of problems related to the coalition formation dynamics. In particular, we settle open problems suggested by Bogomolnaia and Jackson (2002), Brandl, Brandt, and Strobel (2015), and Boehmer and Elkind (2020).

We consider a setting in which agents contribute amounts of a divisible resource (such as money or time) to a common pool, which is used to finance projects of public interest. How the collected resources are to be distributed among the projects is decided by a distribution rule that takes as input a set of approved projects for each agent. An important application of this setting is donor coordination, which allows philanthropists to find an efficient and mutually agreeable distribution of their donations. We analyze various distribution rules (including the Nash product rule and the conditional utilitarian rule) in terms of classic as well as new axioms, and propose the first fair distribution rule that satisfies efficiency and monotonicity. Our main result settles a long-standing open question of Bogomolnaia, Moulin, and Stong (2005) by showing that no strategyproof and efficient rule can guarantee that at least one approved project of each agent receives a positive amount of the resource. The proof reasons about 386 preference profiles and was obtained using a computer-aided method involving SAT solvers.

Voting rules allow multiple agents to aggregate their preferences in order to reach joint decisions. A common flaw of some voting rules, known as the no-show paradox, is that agents may obtain a more preferred outcome by abstaining from an election. We study strategic abstention for set-valued voting rules based on Kelly's and Fishburn's preference extensions. Our contribution is twofold. First, we show that, whenever there are at least five alternatives and seven agents, every Pareto-optimal majoritarian voting rule suffers from the no-show paradox with respect to Fishburn's extension. This is achieved by reducing the statement to a finite - yet very large - problem, which is encoded as a formula in propositional logic and then shown to be unsatisfiable by a SAT solver. We also provide a human-readable proof which we extracted from a minimal unsatisfiable core of the formula. Secondly, we prove that every voting rule that satisfies two natural conditions cannot be manipulated by strategic abstention with respect to Kelly's extension and give examples of well-known Pareto-optimal majoritarian voting rules that meet these requirements.

Randomized voting rules are gaining increasing attention in computational and non-computational social choice. A particularly interesting class of such rules are maximal lottery (ML) schemes, which were proposed by Peter Fishburn in 1984 and have been repeatedly recommended for practical use. However, the subtle differences between different ML schemes are often ignored. Two canonical subsets of ML schemes are C1-ML schemes (which only depend on unweighted majority comparisons) and C2-ML schemes (which only depend on weighted majority comparisons). We prove that C2-ML schemes are the only Pareto efficient---but also among the most manipulable---ML schemes. Furthermore, we evaluate the frequency of manipulable preference profiles and the degree of randomization of ML schemes via extensive computer simulations. In general, ML schemes are rarely manipulable and often do not randomize at all, especially when there are only few alternatives. For up to 21 alternatives, the average support size of ML schemes lies below 4 under reasonable assumptions. The average degree of randomization (in terms of Shannon entropy) of C2-ML schemes is significantly lower than that of C1-ML schemes.

Two important requirements when aggregating the preferences of multiple agents are that the outcome should be economically efficient and the aggregation mechanism should not be manipulable. In this article, we provide a computer-aided proof of a sweeping impossibility using these two conditions for randomized aggregation mechanisms. More precisely, we show that every efficient aggregation mechanism can be manipulated for all expected utility representations of the agents’ preferences. This settles an open problem and strengthens several existing theorems, including statements that were shown within the special domain of assignment. Our proof is obtained by formulating the claim as a satisfiability problem over predicates from real-valued arithmetic, which is then checked using a satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solver. To verify the correctness of the result, a minimal unsatisfiable set of constraints returned by the SMT solver was translated back into a proof in higher-order logic, which was automatically verified by an interactive theorem prover. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of SMT solvers in computational social choice.

A promising direction in computational social choice is to address research problems using computer-aided proving techniques. In particular with SAT solvers, this approach has been shown to be viable not only for proving classic impossibility theorems such as Arrow's Theorem but also for finding new impossibilities in the context of preference extensions. In this paper, we demonstrate that these computer-aided techniques can also be applied to improve our understanding of strategyproof irresolute social choice functions. These functions, however, requires a more evolved encoding as otherwise the search space rapidly becomes much too large. Our contribution is two-fold: We present an efficient encoding for translating such problems to SAT and leverage this encoding to prove new results about strategyproofness with respect to Kelly's and Fishburn's preference extensions. For example, we show that no Pareto-optimal majoritarian social choice function satisfies Fishburn-strategyproofness. Furthermore, we explain how human-readable proofs of such results can be extracted from minimal unsatisfiable cores of the corresponding SAT formulas.

Over the past few years there has been a lively exchange of ideas between computer science, in particular theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence, on the one hand and economics, in particular game theory and social choice, on the other. This exchange goes in both directions and has produced active research areas such as algorithmic game theory and computational social choice. Social choice theory concerns the formal analysis and design of methods for aggregating possibly conflicting preferences such as in voting, assignment, or matching problems. Much of the work in classic social choice theory has focused on results concerning the formal possibility and impossibility of aggregation functions that combine desirable properties. This tutorial provided an overview of central results in social choice theory with a special focus on axiomatic characterizations as well as computational aspects. While some aggregation functions can be easily computed, others have been shown to be computationally intractable (e.g., NP-hard or #P-hard). Topics that were covered in this tutorial included (i) rational choice theory, (ii) Arrow's impossibility theorem, (iii) tournament solutions (such as the top cycle, the uncovered set, the Banks set, or the tournament equilibrium set), and (iv) randomized social choice functions. The overarching theme were escape routes from negative results such as Arrow's impossibility theorem.

For many election systems, bribery (and related) attacks have been shown NP-hard using constructions on combinatorially rich structures such as partitions and covers. This paper shows that for voters who follow the most central political-science model of electorates---single-peaked preferences---those hardness protections vanish. By using single-peaked preferences to simplify combinatorial covering challenges, we for the first time show that NP-hard bribery problems---including those for Kemeny and Llull elections---fall to polynomial time for single-peaked electorates. By using single-peaked preferences to simplify combinatorial partition challenges, we for the first time show that NP-hard partition-of-voters problems fall to polynomial time for single-peaked electorates. We show that for single-peaked electorates, the winner problems for Dodgson and Kemeny elections, though Theta-two-complete in the general case, fall to polynomial time. And we completely classify the complexity of weighted coalition manipulation for scoring protocols in single-peaked electorates.

Efficiency--no agent can be made better off without making another one worse off--and strategyproofness--no agent can obtain a more preferred outcome by misrepresenting his preferences--are two cornerstones of economics and ubiquitous in important areas such as voting, auctions, or matching markets. Within the context of random assignment, Bogomolnaia and Moulin have shown that two particular notions of efficiency and strategyproofness based on stochastic dominance are incompatible. However, there are various other possibilities of lifting preferences over alternatives to preferences over lotteries apart from stochastic dominance. In this paper, we give an overview of common preference extensions, propose two new ones, and show that the above-mentioned incompatibility can be extended to various other notions of strategyproofness and efficiency in randomized social choice.

An important subclass of social choice functions, so-called majoritarian (or C1) functions, only take into account the pairwise majority relation between alternatives. In the absence of majority ties--e.g., when there is an odd number of agents with linear preferences--the majority relation is antisymmetric and complete and can thus conveniently be represented by a tournament. Tournaments have a rich mathematical theory and many formal results for majoritarian functions assume that the majority relation constitutes a tournament. Moreover, most majoritarian functions have only been defined for tournaments and allow for a variety of generalizations to unrestricted preference profiles, none of which can be seen as the unequivocal extension of the original function. In this paper, we argue that restricting attention to tournaments is justified by the existence of a conservative extension, which inherits most of the commonly considered properties from its underlying tournament solution.

No abstract available.

Two common criticisms of Nash equilibrium are its dependence on very demanding epistemic assumptions and its computational intractability. We study the computational properties of less demanding set-valued solution concepts that are based on varying notions of dominance. These concepts are intuitively appealing, they always exist, and admit unique minimal solutions in important subclasses of games. Examples include Shapley's saddles, Harsanyi and Selten's primitive formations, Basu and Weibull's CURB sets, and Dutta and Laslier's minimal covering sets. We propose two generic algorithms for computing these concepts and investigate for which classes of games and which properties of the underlying dominance notion the algorithms are sound and efficient.

While the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem states that every non-dictatorial and resolute, i.e., single-valued, social choice function is manipulable, it was recently shown that a number of appealing irresolute Condorcet extensions are strategyproof according to Kelly's preference extension. In this paper, we study whether these results carry over to stronger preference extensions due to Fishburn and Gärdenfors. For both preference extensions, we provide sufficient conditions for strategyproofness and identify social choice functions that satisfy these conditions, answering a question by Gärdenfors [15] in the affirmative. We also show that some more discriminatory social choice functions fail to satisfy necessary conditions for strategyproofness.

For many election systems, bribery (and related) attacks have been shown NP-hard using constructions on combinatorially rich structures such as partitions and covers. It is important to learn how robust these hardness protection results are, in order to find whether they can be relied on in practice. This paper shows that for voters who follow the most central political-science model of electorates — single-peaked preferences — those protections vanish. By using single-peaked preferences to simplify combinatorial covering challenges, we show that NP-hard bribery problems — including those for Kemeny and Llull elections- — fall to polynomial time. By using single-peaked preferences to simplify combinatorial partition challenges, we show that NP-hard partition-of-voters problems fall to polynomial time. We furthermore show that for single-peaked electorates, the winner problems for Dodgson and Kemeny elections, though Θ2p-complete in the general case, fall to polynomial time. And we completely classify the complexity of weighted coalition manipulation for scoring protocols in single-peaked electorates.

We study computational problems arising from the iterated removal of weakly dominated actions in anonymous games. Our main result shows that it is NP-complete to decide whether an anonymous game with three actions can be solved via iterated weak dominance. The two-action case can be reformulated as a natural elimination problem on a matrix, the complexity of which turns out to be surprisingly difficult to characterize and ultimately remains open. We however establish connections to a matching problem along paths in a directed graph, which is computationally hard in general but can also be used to identify tractable cases of matrix elimination. We finally identify different classes of anonymous games where iterated dominance is in P and NP-complete, respectively.

We investigate whether it is possible to preserve privacy in sealed-bid auctions to a maximal extent. In particular, this paper focuses on unconditional full privacy , i.e., privacy that relies neither on trusted third parties (like auctioneers), nor on computational intractability assumptions (like the hardness of factoring). These constraints imply a scenario in which bidders exchange messages according to some predefined protocol in order to jointly determine the auction outcome without revealing any additional information. It turns out that the first-price sealed-bid auction can be emulated by an unconditionally fully private protocol. However, the protocol's round complexity is exponential in the bid size, and there is no more efficient protocol. On the other hand, we prove the impossibility of privately emulating the second-price sealed-bid auction for more than two bidders. This impossibility holds even when relaxing various privacy constraints such as allowing the revelation of all but one losing bid (while maintaining anonymity) or allowing the revelation of the second highest bidder's identity.

Social choice rules are often evaluated and compared by inquiring whether they satisfy certain desirable criteria such as the Condorcet criterion, which states that an alternative should always be chosen when more than half of the voters prefer it over any other alternative. Many of these criteria can be formulated in terms of choice sets that single out reasonable alternatives based on the preferences of the voters. In this paper, we consider choice sets whose definition merely relies on the pairwise majority relation. These sets include the Copeland set, the Smith set, the Schwartz set, von Neumann-Morgenstern stable sets, the Banks set, and the Slater set. We investigate the relationships between these sets and completely characterize their computational complexity, which allows us to obtain hardness results for entire classes of social choice rules.

No abstract available.