BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Edith Hemaspaandra

Edith Hemaspaandra contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computational ComplexityComputer Science and Game TheoryMultiagent SystemsData Structures and AlgorithmsLogic in Computer Science

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
9works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

9 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Insight into Voting Problem Complexity Using Randomized Classes

The first step in classifying the complexity of an NP problem is typically showing the problem in P or NP-complete. This has been a successful first step for many problems, including voting problems. However, in this paper we show that this may not always be the best first step. We consider the problem of constructive control by replacing voters (CCRV) introduced by Loreggia et al. (2015) for the scoring rule First-Last, which is defined by $\langle 1, 0, \dots, 0, -1\rangle$. We show that this problem is equivalent to Exact Perfect Bipartite Matching, and so CCRV for First-Last can be determined in random polynomial time. So on the one hand, if CCRV for First-Last is NP-complete then RP = NP, which is extremely unlikely. On the other hand, showing that CCRV for First-Last is in P would also show that Exact Perfect Bipartite Matching is in P, which would solve a well-studied 40-year-old open problem. By considering RP as an option we also gain insight into the complexity of CCRV for 2-Approval, ultimately showing it in P, which settles the complexity of the sole open problem in the comprehensive table from Erdélyi et al. (2021).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A Control Dichotomy for Pure Scoring Rules

Scoring systems are an extremely important class of election systems. A length-$m$ (so-called) scoring vector applies only to $m$-candidate elections. To handle general elections, one must use a family of vectors, one per length. The most elegant approach to making sure such families are "family-like" is the recently introduced notion of (polynomial-time uniform) pure scoring rules [Betzler and Dorn 2010], where each scoring vector is obtained from its precursor by adding one new coefficient. We obtain the first dichotomy theorem for pure scoring rules for a control problem. In particular, for constructive control by adding voters (CCAV), we show that CCAV is solvable in polynomial time for $k$-approval with $k \leq 3$, $k$-veto with $k \leq 2$, every pure scoring rule in which only the two top-rated candidates gain nonzero scores, and a particular rule that is a "hybrid" of 1-approval and 1-veto. For all other pure scoring rules, CCAV is NP-complete. We also investigate the descriptive richness of different models for defining pure scoring rules, proving how more rule-generation time gives more rules, proving that rationals give more rules than do the natural numbers, and proving that some restrictions previously thought to be "w.l.o.g." in fact do lose generality.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

X THEN X: Manipulation of Same-System Runoff Elections

Do runoff elections, using the same voting rule as the initial election but just on the winning candidates, increase or decrease the complexity of manipulation? Does allowing revoting in the runoff increase or decrease the complexity relative to just having a runoff without revoting? For both weighted and unweighted voting, we show that even for election systems with simple winner problems the complexity of manipulation, manipulation with runoffs, and manipulation with revoting runoffs are independent, in the abstract. On the other hand, for some important, well-known election systems we determine what holds for each of these cases. For no such systems do we find runoffs lowering complexity, and for some we find that runoffs raise complexity. Ours is the first paper to show that for natural, unweighted election systems, runoffs can increase the manipulation complexity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

The Complexity of Online Manipulation of Sequential Elections

Most work on manipulation assumes that all preferences are known to the manipulators. However, in many settings elections are open and sequential, and manipulators may know the already cast votes but may not know the future votes. We introduce a framework, in which manipulators can see the past votes but not the future ones, to model online coalitional manipulation of sequential elections, and we show that in this setting manipulation can be extremely complex even for election systems with simple winner problems. Yet we also show that for some of the most important election systems such manipulation is simple in certain settings. This suggests that when using sequential voting, one should pay great attention to the details of the setting in choosing one's voting rule. Among the highlights of our classifications are: We show that, depending on the size of the manipulative coalition, the online manipulation problem can be complete for each level of the polynomial hierarchy or even for PSPACE. We obtain the most dramatic contrast to date between the nonunique-winner and unique-winner models: Online weighted manipulation for plurality is in P in the nonunique-winner model, yet is coNP-hard (constructive case) and NP-hard (destructive case) in the unique-winner model. And we obtain what to the best of our knowledge are the first PNP[1]-completeness and PNP-completeness results in the field of computational social choice, in particular proving such completeness for, respectively, the complexity of 3-candidate and 4-candidate (and unlimited-candidate) online weighted coalition manipulation of veto elections.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Weighted Electoral Control

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

The Complexity of Manipulative Attacks in Nearly Single-Peaked Electorates

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Minimization for Generalized Boolean Formulas

The minimization problem for propositional formulas is an important optimization problem in the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. In general, the problem is Sigma-2-complete under Turing reductions, but restricted versions are tractable. We study the complexity of minimization for formulas in two established frameworks for restricted propositional logic: The Post framework allowing arbitrarily nested formulas over a set of Boolean connectors, and the constraint setting, allowing generalizations of CNF formulas. In the Post case, we obtain a dichotomy result: Minimization is solvable in polynomial time or coNP-hard. This result also applies to Boolean circuits. For CNF formulas, we obtain new minimization algorithms for a large class of formulas, and give strong evidence that we have covered all polynomial-time cases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Multimode Control Attacks on Elections

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, and 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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access