BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Arkadii Slinko appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
We study the multifaceted question of how to sample approval elections in a meaningful way. Our analysis aims to discern the properties of various statistical cultures (both established and new ones). Based on the map-of-elections framework by Szufa et al. [2020], we graphically represent statistical cultures; and, by that, provide an intuitive understanding of their differences and properties.
Danilov, Karzanov and Koshevoy (2012) geometrically introduced an interesting operation of composition on tiling Condorcet domains and using it they disproved a long-standing problem of Fishburn about the maximal size of connected Condorcet domains. We give an algebraic definition of this operation and investigate its properties. We give a precise formula for the cardinality of composition of two Condorcet domains and improve the Danilov, Karzanov and Koshevoy result showing that Fishburn's alternating scheme does not always define a largest peak-pit Condorcet domain.
In participatory budgeting we are given a set of projects---each with a cost, an available budget, and a set of voters who in some form express their preferences over the projects. The goal is to select---based on voter preferences---a subset of projects whose total cost does not exceed the budget. We propose several aggregation methods based on the idea of cumulative votes, e.g., for the setting when each voter is given one coin and she specifies how this coin should be split among the projects. We compare our aggregation methods based on (1) axiomatic properties, and (2) computer simulations. We identify one method, Minimal Transfers over Costs, that demonstrates particularly desirable behavior. In particular, it significantly improves on existing methods, satisfies a strong notion of proportionality, and, thus, is promising to be used in practice.
It is well-known that for a group of time-consistent decision makers their collective time preferences may become time-inconsistent. Jackson and Yariv (2014) demonstrated that the result of aggregation of exponential discount functions always exhibits present bias. We show that when preferences satisfy the axioms of Fishburn and Rubinstein (1982), present bias is equivalent to decreasing impatience (DI). Applying the notion of comparative DI introduced by Prelec (2004), we generalize the result of Jackson and Yariv (2014). We prove that the aggregation of distinct discount functions from comparable DI classes results in the collective discount function which is strictly more DI than the least DI of the functions being aggregated. We also prove an analogue of Weitzman's (1998) result, for hyperbolic rather than exponential discount functions. We show that if a decision maker is uncertain about her hyperbolic discount rate, then long-term costs and benefits will be discounted at a rate which is the probability-weighted harmonic mean of the possible hyperbolic discount rates.
Committee scoring rules form a rich class of aggregators of voters' preferences for the purpose of selecting subsets of objects with desired properties, e.g., a shortlist of candidates for an interview, a representative collective body such as a parliament, or a set of locations for a set of public facilities. In the spirit of celebrated Young's characterization result that axiomatizes single-winner scoring rules, we provide an axiomatic characterization of multiwinner committee scoring rules. We show that committee scoring rules---despite forming a remarkably general class of rules---are characterized by the set of four standard axioms, anonymity, neutrality, consistency and continuity, and by one axiom specific to multiwinner rules which we call committee dominance. In the course of our proof, we develop several new notions and techniques. In particular, we introduce and axiomatically characterize multiwinner decision scoring rules, a class of rules that broadly generalizes the well-known majority relation.
Condorcet domains are sets of linear orders with the property that, whenever the preferences of all voters belong to this set, the majority relation has no cycles. We observe that, without loss of generality, such domain can be assumed to be closed in the sense that it contains the majority relation of every profile with an odd number of individuals whose preferences belong to this domain. We show that every closed Condorcet domain is naturally endowed with the structure of a median graph and that, conversely, every median graph is associated with a closed Condorcet domain (which may not be a unique one). The subclass of those Condorcet domains that correspond to linear graphs (chains) are exactly the preference domains with the classical single crossing property. As a corollary, we obtain that the domains with the so-called `representative voter property' (with the exception of a 4-cycle) are the single crossing domains. Maximality of a Condorcet domain imposes additional restrictions on the underlying median graph. We prove that among all trees only the chains can induce maximal Condorcet domains, and we characterize the single crossing domains that in fact do correspond to maximal Condorcet domains. Finally, using Nehring's and Puppe's (2007) characterization of monotone Arrowian aggregation, our analysis yields a rich class of strategy-proof social choice functions on any closed Condorcet domain.
We characterise multi-candidate pure-strategy equilibria in the Hotelling-Downs spatial election model for the class of best-worst voting rules, in which each voter is endowed with both a positive and a negative vote, i.e., each voter can vote in favour of one candidate and against another one. The weights attached to positive and negative votes in calculating a candidate's net score may be different, so that a negative vote and a positive vote need not cancel out exactly. These rules combine the first-place seeking incentives of plurality with the incentives to avoid being ranked last of anti-plurality. We show that these rules generally admit equilibria, which are nonconvergent if and only if the importance of a positive vote exceeds that of a negative vote. The set of equilibria in the latter case is very similar to that of plurality, except that the platforms are less extreme due to the moderating effect of negative votes. Moreover, any degree of dispersion between plurality, at one extreme, and full convergence, at the other, can be attained for the correct choice of the weights.
The concept of dimension in simple games was introduced as a measure of the remoteness of a given game from a weighted game. Taylor and Zwicker (1993) demonstrated that the dimension of a simple game can grow exponentially in the number of players. However, the problem of worst-case growth of the dimension in complete games was left open. Freixas and Puente (2008) showed that complete games of arbitrary dimension exist and, in particular, their examples demonstrate that the worst-case growth of dimension in complete games is at least linear. In this paper, using a novel technique of Kurz and Napel (2016), we demonstrate that the worst-case growth of dimension in complete simple games is exponential in the number of players.
The goal of this paper is twofold. First and foremost, we aim to experimentally and quantitatively show that the choice of a multiwinner voting rule can play a crucial role on the way minorities are represented. We also test the possibility for some of these rules to achieve proportional representation.
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 define top-$k$-counting committee scoring rules and show that the fixed majority consistent rules are a subclass of the top-$k$-counting rules. We give necessary and sufficient conditions for a top-$k$-counting rule to satisfy the fixed-majority criterion. We find that, for most of the rules in our new class, the complexity of winner determination is high (that is, the problem of computing the winners is NP-hard), but we also show examples of rules with polynomial-time winner determination procedures. For some of the computationally hard rules, we provide either exact FPT algorithms or approximate polynomial-time algorithms.
Demange (2012) generalized the classical single-crossing property to the intermediate property on median graphs and proved that the representative voter theorem still holds for this more general framework. We complement her result with proving that the linear orders of any profile which is intermediate on a median graph form a Condorcet domain. We prove that for any median graph there exists a profile that is intermediate with respect to that graph and that one may need at least as many alternatives as vertices to construct such a profile. We provide a polynomial-time algorithm to recognize whether or not a given profile is intermediate with respect to some median graph. Finally, we show that finding winners for the Chamberlin-Courant rule is polynomial-time solvable for profiles that are single-crossing on a tree.
The goal of this paper is to propose and study properties of multiwinner voting rules which can be consider as generalisations of single-winner scoring voting rules. We consider SNTV, Bloc, k-Borda, STV, and several variants of Chamberlin--Courant's and Monroe's rules and their approximations. We identify two broad natural classes of multiwinner score-based rules, and show that many of the existing rules can be captured by one or both of these approaches. We then formulate a number of desirable properties of multiwinner rules, and evaluate the rules we consider with respect to these properties.
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 on the number of clones as well as 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 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.
We construct a noncoherent initial ideal of an ideal in the exterior algebra of order 6, answering a question of D. Maclagan (2000). We also give a method for constructing noncoherent initial ideals in exterior algebras using certain noncoherent term orders.
We investigate two systems of fully proportional representation suggested by Chamberlin Courant and Monroe. Both systems assign a representative to each voter so that the "sum of misrepresentations" is minimized. The winner determination problem for both systems is known to be NP-hard, hence this work aims at investigating whether there are variants of the proposed rules and/or specific electorates for which these problems can be solved efficiently. As a variation of these rules, instead of minimizing the sum of misrepresentations, we considered minimizing the maximal misrepresentation introducing effectively two new rules. In the general case these "minimax" versions of classical rules appeared to be still NP-hard. We investigated the parameterized complexity of winner determination of the two classical and two new rules with respect to several parameters. Here we have a mixture of positive and negative results: e.g., we proved fixed-parameter tractability for the parameter the number of candidates but fixed-parameter intractability for the number of winners. For single-peaked electorates our results are overwhelmingly positive: we provide polynomial-time algorithms for most of the considered problems. The only rule that remains NP-hard for single-peaked electorates is the classical Monroe rule.
We generalize the classical single-crossing property to single-crossing property on trees and obtain new ways to construct Condorcet domains which are sets of linear orders which possess the property that every profile composed from those orders have transitive majority relation. We prove that for any tree there exist profiles that are single-crossing on that tree; moreover, that tree is minimal in this respect for at least one such profile. Finally, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm to recognize whether or not a given profile is single-crossing with respect to some tree. We also show that finding winners for Chamberlin-Courant rule is polynomial for profiles that are single-crossing on trees.
Beimel, Tassa and Weinreb (2008) and Farras and Padro (2010) partially characterized access structures of ideal weighted threshold secret sharing schemes in terms of the operation of composition. They classified indecomposable ideal weighted threshold access structures, and proved that any other ideal weighted threshold access structure is a composition of indecomposable ones. It remained unclear which compositions of indecomposable weighted threshold access structures are weighted. In this paper we fill the gap. Using game-theoretic techniques we determine which compositions of indecomposable ideal access structures are weighted, and obtain an if and only if characterization of ideal weighted threshold secret sharing schemes.
We provide experimental evaluation of a number of known and new algorithms for approximate computation of Monroe's and Chamberlin-Courant's rules. Our experiments, conducted both on real-life preference-aggregation data and on synthetic data, show that even very simple and fast algorithms can in many cases find near-perfect solutions. Our results confirm and complement very recent theoretical analysis of Skowron et al., who have shown good lower bounds on the quality of (some of) the algorithms that we study.
We study the complexity of (approximate) winner determination under the Monroe and Chamberlin--Courant multiwinner voting rules, which determine the set of representatives by optimizing the total (dis)satisfaction of the voters with their representatives. The total (dis)satisfaction is calculated either as the sum of individual (dis)satisfactions (the utilitarian case) or as the (dis)satisfaction of the worst off voter (the egalitarian case). We provide good approximation algorithms for the satisfaction-based utilitarian versions of the Monroe and Chamberlin--Courant rules, and inapproximability results for the dissatisfaction-based utilitarian versions of them and also for all egalitarian cases. Our algorithms are applicable and particularly appealing when voters submit truncated ballots. We provide experimental evaluation of the algorithms both on real-life preference-aggregation data and on synthetic data. These experiments show that our simple and fast algorithms can in many cases find near-perfect solutions.
We model Monroe's and Chamberlin and Courant's multiwinner voting systems as a certain resource allocation problem. We show that for many restricted variants of this problem, under standard complexity-theoretic assumptions, there are no constant-factor approximation algorithms. Yet, we also show cases where good approximation algorithms exist (briefly put, these variants correspond to optimizing total voter satisfaction under Borda scores, within Monroe's and Chamberlin and Courant's voting systems).
There are many situations in which mis-coordinated strategic voting can leave strategic voters worse off than they would have been had they not tried to strategize. We analyse the simplest of such scenarios, in which the set of strategic voters all have the same sincere preferences and all cast the same strategic vote, while all other voters vote sincerely. Most mis-coordinations in this framework can be classified as instances of either strategic overshooting (too many voted strategically) or strategic undershooting (too few). If mis-coordination can result in strategic voters ending up worse off than they would have been had they all just voted sincerely, we call the relevant strategic vote unsafe. We show that under every onto and non-dictatorial social choice rule there exist circumstances where a voter has an incentive to cast a safe strategic vote. We extend the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem by proving that every onto and non-dictatorial social choice rule can be individually manipulated by a voter casting a safe strategic vote.
We use Hotelling's spatial model of competition to investigate the position-taking behaviour of political candidates under a class of electoral systems known as scoring rules. In a scoring rule election, voters rank all the candidates running for office, following which the candidates are assigned points according to a vector of nonincreasing scores. Convergent Nash equilibria in which all candidates adopt the same policy were characterised by Cox (1987). Here, we investigate nonconvergent equilibria, where candidates adopt divergent policies. We identify a number of classes of scoring rules exhibiting a range of different equilibrium properties. For some of these, nonconvergent equilibria do not exist. For others, nonconvergent equilibria in which candidates cluster at positions spread across the issue space are observed. In particular, we prove that the class of convex rules does not have Nash equilibria (convergent or nonconvergent) with the exception of some derivatives of Borda rule. Finally, we examine the special cases of four-, five- and six- candidate elections. In the former two cases, we provide a complete characterisation of nonconvergent equilibria.
Hierarchical simple games - both disjunctive and conjunctive - are natural generalizations of simple majority games. They take their origin in the theory of secret sharing. Another important generalization of simple majority games with origin in economics and politics are weighted and roughly weighted majority games. In this paper we characterize roughly weighted hierarchical games identifying where the two approaches coincide.
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 a 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 their hierarchical structure, and analyze clone structures in single-peaked and single-crossing elections. We give 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.
In many situations, both in human and artificial societies, cooperating agents have different status with respect to the activity and it is not uncommon that certain actions are only allowed to coalitions that satisfy certain criteria, e.g., to sufficiently large coalitions or coalitions which involve players of sufficient seniority. Simmons (1988) formalized this idea in the context of secret sharing schemes by defining the concept of a (disjunctive) hierarchical access structure. Tassa (2007) introduced their conjunctive counterpart. From the game theory perspective access structures in secret sharing schemes are simple games. In this paper we prove the duality between disjunctive and conjunctive hierarchical games. We introduce a canonical representation theorem for both types of hierarchical games and characterize disjunctive ones as complete games with a unique shift-maximal losing coalition. We give a short combinatorial proof of the Beimel-Tassa-Weinreb (2008) characterization of weighted disjunctive hierarchical games. By duality we get similar theorems for conjunctive hierarchical games.
In this paper we inititate the study of abstract simplicial complexes which are initial segments of qualitative probability orders. This is a natural class that contains the threshold complexes and is contained in the shifted complexes, but is equal to neither. In particular we construct a qualitative probability order on 26 atoms that has an initial segment which is not a threshold simplicial complex. Although 26 is probably not the minimal number for which such example exists we provide some evidence that it cannot be much smaller. We prove some necessary conditions for this class and make a conjecture as to a characterization of them. The conjectured characterization relies on some ideas from cooperative game theory.
The main idea of the {\em distance rationalizability} approach to view the voters' preferences as an imperfect approximation to some kind of consensus is deeply rooted in social choice literature. It allows one to define ("rationalize") voting rules via a consensus class of elections and a distance: a candidate is said to be an election winner if she 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 distance rationalized. In this paper, we provide new results on distance rationalizability of several Condorcet-consistent voting rules. In particular, we distance rationalize Young's rule and Maximin rule using distances similar to the Hamming distance. We show that the claim that Young's rule can be rationalized by the Condorcet consensus class and the Hamming distance is incorrect; in fact, these consensus class and distance yield a new rule which has not been studied before. We prove that, similarly to Young's rule, this new rule has a computationally hard winner determination problem.