BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Toby Walsh 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 propose an alternative to the Turing test that removes the inherent asymmetry between humans and machines in Turing's original imitation game. In this new test, both humans and machines judge each other. We argue that this makes the test more robust against simple deceptions. We also propose a small number of refinements to improve further the test. These refinements could be applied also to Turing's original imitation game.
Rejected job applicants seldom receive explanations from employers. Techniques from Explainable AI (XAI) could provide explanations at scale. Although XAI researchers have developed many different types of explanations, we know little about the type of explanations job applicants want. We use a survey of recent job applicants to fill this gap. Our survey generates three main insights. First, the current norm of, at most, generic feedback frustrates applicants. Second, applicants feel the employer has an obligation to provide an explanation. Third, job applicants want to know why they were unsuccessful and how to improve.
Bhutan is sometimes described as \a pebble between two boulders", a small country caught between the two most populous nations on earth: India and China. This pebble is, however, about to be caught up in a vortex: the transformation of our economic, political and social orders by new technologies like Artificial Intelligence. What can a small nation like Bhutan hope to do in the face of such change? What should the nation do, not just to weather this storm, but to become a better place in which to live?
"Mathematics is not a careful march down a well-cleared highway, but a journey into a strange wilderness, where the explorers often get lost. Rigour should be a signal to the historian that the maps have been made, and the real explorers have gone elsewhere." W.S. Anglin, the Mathematical Intelligencer, 4 (4), 1982.
Two simple and attractive mechanisms for the fair division of indivisible goods in an online setting are LIKE and BALANCED LIKE. We study some fundamental computational problems concerning the outcomes of these mechanisms. In particular, we consider what expected outcomes are possible, what outcomes are necessary, and how to compute their exact outcomes. In general, we show that such questions are more tractable to compute for LIKE than for BALANCED LIKE. As LIKE is strategy-proof but BALANCED LIKE is not, we also consider the computational problem of how, with BALANCED LIKE, an agent can compute a strategic bid to improve their outcome. We prove that this problem is intractable in general.
I survey recent progress on a classic and challenging problem in social choice: the fair division of indivisible items. I discuss how a computational perspective has provided interesting insights into and understanding of how to divide items fairly and efficiently. This has involved bringing to bear tools such as those used in knowledge representation, computational complexity, approximation methods, game theory, online analysis and communication complexity
In the past few years, several new matching models have been proposed and studied that take into account complex distributional constraints. Relevant lines of work include (1) school choice with diversity constraints where students have (possibly overlapping) types and (2) hospital-doctor matching where various regional quotas are imposed. In this paper, we present a polynomial-time reduction to transform an instance of (1) to an instance of (2) and we show how the feasibility and stability of corresponding matchings are preserved under the reduction. Our reduction provides a formal connection between two important strands of work on matching with distributional constraints. We then apply the reduction in two ways. Firstly, we show that it is NP-complete to check whether a feasible and stable outcome for (1) exists. Due to our reduction, these NP-completeness results carry over to setting (2). In view of this, we help unify some of the results that have been presented in the literature. Secondly, if we have positive results for (2), then we have corresponding results for (1). One key conclusion of our results is that further developments on axiomatic and algorithmic aspects of hospital-doctor matching with regional quotas will result in corresponding results for school choice with diversity constraints.
We study the fair division of items to agents supposing that agents can form groups. We thus give natural generalizations of popular concepts such as envy-freeness and Pareto efficiency to groups of fixed sizes. Group envy-freeness requires that no group envies another group. Group Pareto efficiency requires that no group can be made better off without another group be made worse off. We study these new group properties from an axiomatic viewpoint. We thus propose new fairness taxonomies that generalize existing taxonomies. We further study near versions of these group properties as allocations for some of them may not exist. We finally give three prices of group fairness between group properties for three common social welfares (i.e. utilitarian, egalitarian, and Nash).
We study a new but simple model for online fair division in which indivisible items arrive one-by-one and agents have monotone utilities over bundles of the items. We consider axiomatic properties of mechanisms for this model such as strategy-proofness, envy-freeness, and Pareto efficiency. We prove a number of impossibility results that justify why we consider relaxations of the properties, as well as why we consider restricted preference domains on which good axiomatic properties can be achieved. We propose two mechanisms that have good axiomatic fairness properties on restricted but common preference domains.
This paper combines two key ingredients for online algorithms - competitive analysis (e.g. the competitive ratio) and advice complexity (e.g. the number of advice bits needed to improve online decisions) - in the context of a simple online fair division model where items arrive one by one and are allocated to agents via some mechanism. We consider four such online mechanisms: the popular Ranking matching mechanism adapted from online bipartite matching and the Like, Balanced Like and Maximum Like allocation mechanisms firstly introduced for online fair division problems. Our first contribution is that we perform a competitive analysis of these mechanisms with respect to the expected size of the matching, the utilitarian welfare, and the egalitarian welfare. We also suppose that an oracle can give a number of advice bits to the mechanisms. Our second contribution is to give several impossibility results; e.g. no mechanism can achieve the egalitarian outcome of the optimal offline mechanism supposing they receive partial advice from the oracle. Our third contribution is that we quantify the competitive performance of these four mechanisms w.r.t. the number of oracle requests they can make. We thus present a most-competitive mechanism for each objective.
We can break symmetry by eliminating solutions within a symmetry class that are not least in the lexicographical ordering. This is often referred to as the lex-leader method. Unfortunately, as symmetry groups can be large, the lexleader method is not tractable in general. We prove that using other total orderings besides the usual lexicographical ordering will not reduce the computational complexity of breaking symmetry in general. It follows that breaking symmetry with other orderings like the Gray code ordering or the Snake-Lex ordering is intractable in general.
We study the impact on mechanisms for facility location of moving from one dimension to two (or more) dimensions and Euclidean or Manhattan distances. We consider three fundamental axiomatic properties: anonymity which is a basic fairness property, Pareto optimality which is one of the most important efficiency properties, and strategy proofness which ensures agents do not have an incentive to mis-report. We also consider how well such mechanisms can approximate the optimal welfare. Our results are somewhat negative. Moving from one dimension to two (or more) dimensions often makes these axiomatic properties more difficult to achieve. For example, with two facilities in Euclidean space or with just a single facility in Manhattan space, no mechanism is anonymous, Pareto optimal and strategy proof. By contrast, mechanisms on the line exist with all three properties.We also show that approximation ratios may increase when moving to two (or more) dimensions. All our impossibility results are minimal. If we drop one of the three axioms (anonymity, Pareto optimality or strategy proofness) multiple mechanisms satisfy the other two axioms.
An important feature of many real world facility location problems are capacity limits on the facilities. We show here how capacity constraints make it harder to design strategy proof mechanisms for facility location, but counter-intuitively can improve the guarantees on how well we can approximate the optimal solution.
We consider fair division problems where indivisible items arrive one-by-one in an online fashion and are allocated immediately to agents who have additive utilities over these items. Many existing offline mechanisms do not work in this online setting. In addition, many existing axiomatic results often do not transfer from the offline to the online setting. For this reason, we propose here three new online mechanisms, as well as consider the axiomatic properties of three previously proposed online mechanisms. In this paper, we use these mechanisms and characterize classes of online mechanisms that are strategy-proof, and return envy-free and Pareto efficient allocations, as well as combinations of these properties. Finally, we identify an important impossibility result.
We consider a fair division model in which agents have positive, zero and negative utilities for items. For this model, we analyse one existing fairness property - EFX - and three new and related properties - EFX$_0$, EFX$^3$ and EF1$^3$ - in combination with Pareto-optimality. With general utilities, we give a modified version of an existing algorithm for computing an EF1$^3$ allocation. With $-α/0/α$ utilities, this algorithm returns an EFX$^3$ and PO allocation. With absolute identical utilities, we give a new algorithm for an EFX and PO allocation. With $-α/0/β$ utilities, this algorithm also returns such an allocation. We report some new impossibility results as well.
The h-index is an important bibliographic measure used to assess the performance of researchers. Dutiful researchers merge different versions of their articles in their Google Scholar profile even though this can decrease their h-index. In this article, we study the manipulation of the h-index by undoing such merges. In contrast to manipulation by merging articles (van Bevern et al. [Artif. Intel. 240:19-35, 2016]) such manipulation is harder to detect. We present numerous results on computational complexity (from linear-time algorithms to parameterized computational hardness results) and empirically indicate that at least small improvements of the h-index by splitting merged articles are unfortunately easily achievable.
We consider Max-min Share (MmS) allocations of items both in the case where items are goods (positive utility) and when they are chores (negative utility). We show that fair allocations of goods and chores have some fundamental connections but differences as well. We prove that like in the case for goods, an MmS allocation does not need to exist for chores and computing an MmS allocation - if it exists - is strongly NP-hard. In view of these non-existence and complexity results, we present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm for MmS fairness for chores. We then introduce a new fairness concept called optimal MmS that represents the best possible allocation in terms of MmS that is guaranteed to exist. For both goods and chores, we use connections to parallel machine scheduling to give (1) an exponential-time exact algorithm and (2) a polynomial-time approximation scheme for computing an optimal MmS allocation when the number of agents is fixed.
Computational Social Choice (ComSoc) is a rapidly developing field at the intersection of computer science, economics, social choice, and political science. The study of tournaments is fundamental to ComSoc and many results have been published about tournament solution sets and reasoning in tournaments. Theoretical results in ComSoc tend to be worst case and tell us little about performance in practice. To this end we detail some experiments on tournaments using real wold data from soccer and tennis. We make three main contributions to the understanding of tournaments using real world data from English Premier League, the German Bundesliga, and the ATP World Tour: (1) we find that the NP-hard question of finding a seeding for which a given team can win a tournament is easily solvable in real world instances, (2) using detailed and principled methodology from statistical physics we show that our real world data obeys a log-normal distribution; and (3) leveraging our log-normal distribution result and using robust statistical methods, we show that the popular Condorcet Random (CR) tournament model does not generate realistic tournament data.
We propose a model of interdependent scheduling games in which each player controls a set of services that they schedule independently. A player is free to schedule his own services at any time; however, each of these services only begins to accrue reward for the player when all predecessor services, which may or may not be controlled by the same player, have been activated. This model, where players have interdependent services, is motivated by the problems faced in planning and coordinating large-scale infrastructures, e.g., restoring electricity and gas to residents after a natural disaster or providing medical care in a crisis when different agencies are responsible for the delivery of staff, equipment, and medicine. We undertake a game-theoretic analysis of this setting and in particular consider the issues of welfare maximization, computing best responses, Nash dynamics, and existence and computation of Nash equilibria.
We consider approval-based committee voting, i.e. the setting where each voter approves a subset of candidates, and these votes are then used to select a fixed-size set of winners (committee). We propose a natural axiom for this setting, which we call justified representation (JR). This axiom requires that if a large enough group of voters exhibits agreement by supporting the same candidate, then at least one voter in this group has an approved candidate in the winning committee. We show that for every list of ballots it is possible to select a committee that provides JR. However, it turns out that several prominent approval-based voting rules may fail to output such a committee. In particular, while Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) always outputs a committee that provides JR, Reweighted Approval Voting (RAV), a tractable approximation to PAV, does not have this property. We then introduce a stronger version of the JR axiom, which we call extended justified representation (EJR), and show that PAV satisfies EJR, while other rules we consider do not; indeed, EJR can be used to characterize PAV within the class of weighted PAV rules. We also consider several other questions related to JR and EJR, including the relationship between JR/EJR and core stability, and the complexity of the associated algorithmic problems.
There is both much optimism and pessimism around artificial intelligence (AI) today. The optimists are investing millions of dollars, and even in some cases billions of dollars into AI. The pessimists, on the other hand, predict that AI will end many things: jobs, warfare, and even the human race. Both the optimists and the pessimists often appeal to the idea of a technological singularity, a point in time where machine intelligence starts to run away, and a new, more intelligent species starts to inhabit the earth. If the optimists are right, this will be a moment that fundamentally changes our economy and our society. If the pessimists are right, this will be a moment that also fundamentally changes our economy and our society. It is therefore very worthwhile spending some time deciding if either of them might be right.
Multi-winner voting rules based on approval ballots have received increased attention in recent years. In particular Satisfaction Approval Voting (SAV) and its variants have been proposed. In this note, we show that the winning set can be determined in polynomial time for two prominent and natural variants of SAV. We thank Arkadii Slinko for suggesting these problems in a talk at the Workshop on Challenges in Algorithmic Social Choice, Bad Belzig, October 11, 2014.
The probabilistic serial (PS) rule is a prominent randomized rule for assigning indivisible goods to agents. Although it is well known for its good fairness and welfare properties, it is not strategyproof. In view of this, we address several fundamental questions regarding equilibria under PS. Firstly, we show that Nash deviations under the PS rule can cycle. Despite the possibilities of cycles, we prove that a pure Nash equilibrium is guaranteed to exist under the PS rule. We then show that verifying whether a given profile is a pure Nash equilibrium is coNP-complete, and computing a pure Nash equilibrium is NP-hard. For two agents, we present a linear-time algorithm to compute a pure Nash equilibrium which yields the same assignment as the truthful profile. Finally, we conduct experiments to evaluate the quality of the equilibria that exist under the PS rule, finding that the vast majority of pure Nash equilibria yield social welfare that is at least that of the truthful profile.
We consider the discrete assignment problem in which agents express ordinal preferences over objects and these objects are allocated to the agents in a fair manner. We use the stochastic dominance relation between fractional or randomized allocations to systematically define varying notions of proportionality and envy-freeness for discrete assignments. The computational complexity of checking whether a fair assignment exists is studied for these fairness notions. We also characterize the conditions under which a fair assignment is guaranteed to exist. For a number of fairness concepts, polynomial-time algorithms are presented to check whether a fair assignment exists. Our algorithmic results also extend to the case of unequal entitlements of agents. Our NP-hardness result, which holds for several variants of envy-freeness, answers an open question posed by Bouveret, Endriss, and Lang (ECAI 2010). We also propose fairness concepts that always suggest a non-empty set of assignments with meaningful fairness properties. Among these concepts, optimal proportionality and optimal weak proportionality appear to be desirable fairness concepts.
We discuss how to generate singled peaked votes uniformly from the Impartial Culture model.
The probabilistic serial (PS) rule is one of the most prominent randomized rules for the assignment problem. It is well-known for its superior fairness and welfare properties. However, PS is not immune to manipulative behaviour by the agents. We initiate the study of the computational complexity of an agent manipulating the PS rule. We show that computing an expected utility better response is NP- hard. On the other hand, we present a polynomial-time algorithm to compute a lexicographic best response. For the case of two agents, we show that even an expected utility best response can be computed in polynomial time. Our result for the case of two agents relies on an interesting connection with sequential allocation of discrete objects.
We study an online model of fair division designed to capture features of a real world charity problem. We consider two simple mechanisms for this model in which agents simply declare what items they like. We analyse several axiomatic properties of these mechanisms like strategy-proofness and envy-freeness. Finally, we perform a competitive analysis and compute the price of anarchy.
We study computational problems for two popular parliamentary voting procedures: the amendment procedure and the successive procedure. While finding successful manipulations or agenda controls is tractable for both procedures, our real-world experimental results indicate that most elections cannot be manipulated by a few voters and agenda control is typically impossible. If the voter preferences are incomplete, then finding which alternatives can possibly win is NP-hard for both procedures. Whilst deciding if an alternative necessarily wins is coNP-hard for the amendment procedure, it is polynomial-time solvable for the successive one.
Sometime in the future we will have to deal with the impact of AI's being mistaken for humans. For this reason, I propose that any autonomous system should be designed so that it is unlikely to be mistaken for anything besides an autonomous sysem, and should identify itself at the start of any interaction with another agent.
We propose and evaluate a number of solutions to the problem of calculating the cost to serve each location in a single-vehicle transport setting. Such cost to serve analysis has application both strategically and operationally in transportation. The problem is formally given by the traveling salesperson game (TSG), a cooperative total utility game in which agents correspond to locations in a traveling salesperson problem (TSP). The cost to serve a location is an allocated portion of the cost of an optimal tour. The Shapley value is one of the most important normative division schemes in cooperative games, giving a principled and fair allocation both for the TSG and more generally. We consider a number of direct and sampling-based procedures for calculating the Shapley value, and present the first proof that approximating the Shapley value of the TSG within a constant factor is NP-hard. Treating the Shapley value as an ideal baseline allocation, we then develop six proxies for that value which are relatively easy to compute. We perform an experimental evaluation using Synthetic Euclidean games as well as games derived from real-world tours calculated for fast-moving consumer goods scenarios. Our experiments show that several computationally tractable allocation techniques correspond to good proxies for the Shapley value.
How do we allocate scarcere sources? How do we fairly allocate costs? These are two pressing challenges facing society today. I discuss two recent projects at NICTA concerning resource and cost allocation. In the first, we have been working with FoodBank Local, a social startup working in collaboration with food bank charities around the world to optimise the logistics of collecting and distributing donated food. Before we can distribute this food, we must decide how to allocate it to different charities and food kitchens. This gives rise to a fair division problem with several new dimensions, rarely considered in the literature. In the second, we have been looking at cost allocation within the distribution network of a large multinational company. This also has several new dimensions rarely considered in the literature.
We prove that playing Candy Crush to achieve a given score in a fixed number of swaps is NP-hard.
We study computational aspects of three prominent voting rules that use approval ballots to elect multiple winners. These rules are satisfaction approval voting, proportional approval voting, and reweighted approval voting. We first show that computing the winner for proportional approval voting is NP-hard, closing a long standing open problem. As none of the rules are strategyproof, even for dichotomous preferences, we study various strategic aspects of the rules. In particular, we examine the computational complexity of computing a best response for both a single agent and a group of agents. In many settings, we show that it is NP-hard for an agent or agents to compute how best to vote given a fixed set of approval ballots from the other agents.
We study the computational complexity of controlling the result of an election by breaking ties strategically. This problem is equivalent to the problem of deciding the winner of an election under parallel universes tie-breaking. When the chair of the election is only asked to break ties to choose between one of the co-winners, the problem is trivially easy. However, in multi-round elections, we prove that it can be NP-hard for the chair to compute how to break ties to ensure a given result. Additionally, we show that the form of the tie-breaking function can increase the opportunities for control. Indeed, we prove that it can be NP-hard to control an election by breaking ties even with a two-stage voting rule.
A simple mechanism for allocating indivisible resources is sequential allocation in which agents take turns to pick items. We focus on possible and necessary allocation problems, checking whether allocations of a given form occur in some or all mechanisms for several commonly used classes of sequential allocation mechanisms. In particular, we consider whether a given agent receives a given item, a set of items, or a subset of items for five natural classes of sequential allocation mechanisms: balanced, recursively balanced, balanced alternating, strictly alternating and all policies. We identify characterizations of allocations produced balanced, recursively balanced, balanced alternating policies and strictly alternating policies respectively, which extend the well-known characterization by Brams and King [2005] for policies without restrictions. In addition, we examine the computational complexity of possible and necessary allocation problems for these classes.
The probabilistic serial (PS) rule is one of the most prominent randomized rules for the assignment problem. It is well-known for its superior fairness and welfare properties. However, PS is not immune to manipulative behaviour by the agents. We examine computational and non-computational aspects of strategising under the PS rule. Firstly, we study the computational complexity of an agent manipulating the PS rule. We present polynomial-time algorithms for optimal manipulation. Secondly, we show that expected utility best responses can cycle. Thirdly, we examine the existence and computation of Nash equilibrium profiles under the PS rule. We show that a pure Nash equilibrium is guaranteed to exist under the PS rule. For two agents, we identify two different types of preference profiles that are not only in Nash equilibrium but can also be computed in linear time. Finally, we conduct experiments to check the frequency of manipulability of the PS rule under different combinations of the number of agents, objects, and utility functions.
In many real world elections, agents are not required to rank all candidates. We study three of the most common methods used to modify voting rules to deal with such partial votes. These methods modify scoring rules (like the Borda count), elimination style rules (like single transferable vote) and rules based on the tournament graph (like Copeland) respectively. We argue that with an elimination style voting rule like single transferable vote, partial voting does not change the situations where strategic voting is possible. However, with scoring rules and rules based on the tournament graph, partial voting can increase the situations where strategic voting is possible. As a consequence, the computational complexity of computing a strategic vote can change. For example, with Borda count, the complexity of computing a strategic vote can decrease or stay the same depending on how we score partial votes.
We propose the PeerRank method for peer assessment. This constructs a grade for an agent based on the grades proposed by the agents evaluating the agent. Since the grade of an agent is a measure of their ability to grade correctly, the PeerRank method weights grades by the grades of the grading agent. The PeerRank method also provides an incentive for agents to grade correctly. As the grades of an agent depend on the grades of the grading agents, and as these grades themselves depend on the grades of other agents, we define the PeerRank method by a fixed point equation similar to the PageRank method for ranking web-pages. We identify some formal properties of the PeerRank method (for example, it satisfies axioms of unanimity, no dummy, no discrimination and symmetry), discuss some examples, compare with related work and evaluate the performance on some synthetic data. Our results show considerable promise, reducing the error in grade predictions by a factor of 2 or more in many cases over the natural baseline of averaging peer grades.
We consider a simple sequential allocation procedure for sharing indivisible items between agents in which agents take turns to pick items. Supposing additive utilities and independence between the agents, we show that the expected utility of each agent is computable in polynomial time. Using this result, we prove that the expected utilitarian social welfare is maximized when agents take alternate turns. We also argue that this mechanism remains optimal when agents behave strategically
We can break symmetry by eliminating solutions within each symmetry class. For instance, the Lex-Leader method eliminates all but the smallest solution in the lexicographical ordering. Unfortunately, the Lex-Leader method is intractable in general. We prove that, under modest assumptions, we cannot reduce the worst case complexity of breaking symmetry by using other orderings on solutions. We also prove that a common type of symmetry, where rows and columns in a matrix of decision variables are interchangeable, is intractable to break when we use two promising alternatives to the lexicographical ordering: the Gray code ordering (which uses a different ordering on solutions), and the Snake-Lex ordering (which is a variant of the lexicographical ordering that re-orders the variables). Nevertheless, we show experimentally that using other orderings like the Gray code to break symmetry can be beneficial in practice as they may better align with the objective function and branching heuristic.
Many native ASP solvers exploit unfounded sets to compute consequences of a logic program via some form of well-founded negation, but disregard its contrapositive, well-founded justification (WFJ), due to computational cost. However, we demonstrate that this can hinder propagation of many relevant conditions such as reachability. In order to perform WFJ with low computational cost, we devise a method that approximates its consequences by computing dominators in a flowgraph, a problem for which linear-time algorithms exist. Furthermore, our method allows for additional unfounded set inference, called well-founded domination (WFD). We show that the effect of WFJ and WFD can be simulated for a important classes of logic programs that include reachability. This paper is a corrected and extended version of a paper published at the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2013). It has been adapted to exclude Theorem 10 and its consequences, but provides all missing proofs.
We propose a new global SPACING constraint that is useful in modeling events that are distributed over time, like learning units scheduled over a study program or repeated patterns in music compositions. First, we investigate theoretical properties of the constraint and identify tractable special cases. We propose efficient DC filtering algorithms for these cases. Then, we experimentally evaluate performance of the proposed algorithms on a music composition problem and demonstrate that our filtering algorithms outperform the state-of-the-art approach for solving this problem.
Social networks are increasingly being used to conduct polls. We introduce a simple model of such social polling. We suppose agents vote sequentially, but the order in which agents choose to vote is not necessarily fixed. We also suppose that an agent's vote is influenced by the votes of their friends who have already voted. Despite its simplicity, this model provides useful insights into a number of areas including social polling, sequential voting, and manipulation. We prove that the number of candidates and the network structure affect the computational complexity of computing which candidate necessarily or possibly can win in such a social poll. For social networks with bounded treewidth and a bounded number of candidates, we provide polynomial algorithms for both problems. In other cases, we prove that computing which candidates necessarily or possibly win are computationally intractable.
In collective decision making, where a voting rule is used to take a collective decision among a group of agents, manipulation by one or more agents is usually considered negative behavior to be avoided, or at least to be made computationally difficult for the agents to perform. However, there are scenarios in which a restricted form of manipulation can instead be beneficial. In this paper we consider the iterative version of several voting rules, where at each step one agent is allowed to manipulate by modifying his ballot according to a set of restricted manipulation moves which are computationally easy and require little information to be performed. We prove convergence of iterative voting rules when restricted manipulation is allowed, and we present experiments showing that most iterative voting rules have a higher Condorcet efficiency than their non-iterative version.
The FOCUS constraint expresses the notion that solutions are concentrated. In practice, this constraint suffers from the rigidity of its semantics. To tackle this issue, we propose three generalizations of the FOCUS constraint. We provide for each one a complete filtering algorithm as well as discussing decompositions.
We propose a simple method for combining together voting rules that performs a run-off between the different winners of each voting rule. We prove that this combinator has several good properties. For instance, even if just one of the base voting rules has a desirable property like Condorcet consistency, the combination inherits this property. In addition, we prove that combining voting rules together in this way can make finding a manipulation more computationally difficult. Finally, we study the impact of this combinator on approximation methods that find close to optimal manipulations.
Successive elimination of candidates is often a route to making manipulation intractable to compute. We prove that eliminating candidates does not necessarily increase the computational complexity of manipulation. However, for many voting rules used in practice, the computational complexity increases. For example, it is already known that it is NP-hard to compute how a single voter can manipulate the result of single transferable voting (the elimination version of plurality voting). We show here that it is NP-hard to compute how a single voter can manipulate the result of the elimination version of veto voting, of the closely related Coombs' rule, and of the elimination versions of a general class of scoring rules.
Symmetry is an important problem in many combinatorial problems. One way of dealing with symmetry is to add constraints that eliminate symmetric solutions. We survey recent results in this area, focusing especially on two common and useful cases: symmetry breaking constraints for row and column symmetry, and symmetry breaking constraints for eliminating value symmetry
We study propagation of the RegularGcc global constraint. This ensures that each row of a matrix of decision variables satisfies a Regular constraint, and each column satisfies a Gcc constraint. On the negative side, we prove that propagation is NP-hard even under some strong restrictions (e.g. just 3 values, just 4 states in the automaton, or just 5 columns to the matrix). On the positive side, we identify two cases where propagation is fixed parameter tractable. In addition, we show how to improve propagation over a simple decomposition into separate Regular and Gcc constraints by identifying some necessary but insufficient conditions for a solution. We enforce these conditions with some additional weighted row automata. Experimental results demonstrate the potential of these methods on some standard benchmark problems.
We revisit the SeqBin constraint. This meta-constraint subsumes a number of important global constraints like Change, Smooth and IncreasingNValue. We show that the previously proposed filtering algorithm for SeqBin has two drawbacks even under strong restrictions: it does not detect bounds disentailment and it is not idempotent. We identify the cause for these problems, and propose a new propagator that overcomes both issues. Our algorithm is based on a connection to the problem of finding a path of a given cost in a restricted $n$-partite graph. Our propagator enforces domain consistency in O(nd^2) and, for special cases of SeqBin that include Change, Smooth and IncreasingNValue, in O(nd) time.
Set and multiset variables in constraint programming have typically been represented using subset bounds. However, this is a weak representation that neglects potentially useful information about a set such as its cardinality. For set variables, the length-lex (LL) representation successfully provides information about the length (cardinality) and position in the lexicographic ordering. For multiset variables, where elements can be repeated, we consider richer representations that take into account additional information. We study eight different representations in which we maintain bounds according to one of the eight different orderings: length-(co)lex (LL/LC), variety-(co)lex (VL/VC), length-variety-(co)lex (LVL/LVC), and variety-length-(co)lex (VLL/VLC) orderings. These representations integrate together information about the cardinality, variety (number of distinct elements in the multiset), and position in some total ordering. Theoretical and empirical comparisons of expressiveness and compactness of the eight representations suggest that length-variety-(co)lex (LVL/LVC) and variety-length-(co)lex (VLL/VLC) usually give tighter bounds after constraint propagation. We implement the eight representations and evaluate them against the subset bounds representation with cardinality and variety reasoning. Results demonstrate that they offer significantly better pruning and runtime.
We prove that it is NP-hard for a coalition of two manipulators to compute how to manipulate the Borda voting rule. This resolves one of the last open problems in the computational complexity of manipulating common voting rules. Because of this NP-hardness, we treat computing a manipulation as an approximation problem where we try to minimize the number of manipulators. Based on ideas from bin packing and multiprocessor scheduling, we propose two new approximation methods to compute manipulations of the Borda rule. Experiments show that these methods significantly outperform the previous best known %existing approximation method. We are able to find optimal manipulations in almost all the randomly generated elections tested. Our results suggest that, whilst computing a manipulation of the Borda rule by a coalition is NP-hard, computational complexity may provide only a weak barrier against manipulation in practice.
We consider manipulation problems when the manipulator only has partial information about the votes of the nonmanipulators. Such partial information is described by an information set, which is the set of profiles of the nonmanipulators that are indistinguishable to the manipulator. Given such an information set, a dominating manipulation is a non-truthful vote that the manipulator can cast which makes the winner at least as preferable (and sometimes more preferable) as the winner when the manipulator votes truthfully. When the manipulator has full information, computing whether or not there exists a dominating manipulation is in P for many common voting rules (by known results). We show that when the manipulator has no information, there is no dominating manipulation for many common voting rules. When the manipulator's information is represented by partial orders and only a small portion of the preferences are unknown, computing a dominating manipulation is NP-hard for many common voting rules. Our results thus throw light on whether we can prevent strategic behavior by limiting information about the votes of other voters.
Nanson's and Baldwin's voting rules select a winner by successively eliminating candidates with low Borda scores. We show that these rules have a number of desirable computational properties. In particular, with unweighted votes, it is NP-hard to manipulate either rule with one manipulator, whilst with weighted votes, it is NP-hard to manipulate either rule with a small number of candidates and a coalition of manipulators. As only a couple of other voting rules are known to be NP-hard to manipulate with a single manipulator, Nanson's and Baldwin's rules appear to be particularly resistant to manipulation from a theoretical perspective. We also propose a number of approximation methods for manipulating these two rules. Experiments demonstrate that both rules are often difficult to manipulate in practice. These results suggest that elimination style voting rules deserve further study.
We propose an online form of the cake cutting problem. This models situations where agents arrive and depart during the process of dividing a resource. We show that well known fair division procedures like cut-and-choose and the Dubins-Spanier moving knife procedure can be adapted to apply to such online problems. We propose some fairness properties that online cake cutting procedures can possess like online forms of proportionality and envy-freeness. We also consider the impact of collusion between agents. Finally, we study theoretically and empirically the competitive ratio of these online cake cutting procedures. Based on its resistance to collusion, and its good performance in practice, our results favour the online version of the cut-and-choose procedure over the online version of the moving knife procedure.
Heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems (MCS) permit different logics to be used in different contexts, and link them via bridge rules. We investigate the role of symmetry detection and symmetry breaking in such systems to eliminate symmetric parts of the search space and, thereby, simplify the evaluation process. We propose a distributed algorithm that takes a local stance, i.e., computes independently the partial symmetries of a context and, in order to construct potential symmetries of the whole, combines them with those partial symmetries returned by neighbouring contexts. We prove the correctness of our methods. We instantiate such symmetry detection and symmetry breaking in a multi-context system with contexts that use answer set programs, and demonstrate computational benefit on some recently proposed benchmarks.
We propose AllDiffPrecedence, a new global constraint that combines together an AllDifferent constraint with precedence constraints that strictly order given pairs of variables. We identify a number of applications for this global constraint including instruction scheduling and symmetry breaking. We give an efficient propagation algorithm that enforces bounds consistency on this global constraint. We show how to implement this propagator using a decomposition that extends the bounds consistency enforcing decomposition proposed for the AllDifferent constraint. Finally, we prove that enforcing domain consistency on this global constraint is NP-hard in general.
We solve constraint satisfaction problems through translation to answer set programming (ASP). Our reformulations have the property that unit-propagation in the ASP solver achieves well defined local consistency properties like arc, bound and range consistency. Experiments demonstrate the computational value of this approach.
We present a new approach to enhancing Answer Set Programming (ASP) with Constraint Processing techniques which allows for solving interesting Constraint Satisfaction Problems in ASP. We show how constraints on finite domains can be decomposed into logic programs such that unit-propagation achieves arc, bound or range consistency. Experiments with our encodings demonstrate their computational impact.
We study the problem of coalitional manipulation in elections using the unweighted Borda rule. We provide empirical evidence of the manipulability of Borda elections in the form of two new greedy manipulation algorithms based on intuitions from the bin-packing and multiprocessor scheduling domains. Although we have not been able to show that these algorithms beat existing methods in the worst-case, our empirical evaluation shows that they significantly outperform the existing method and are able to find optimal manipulations in the vast majority of the randomly generated elections that we tested. These empirical results provide further evidence that the Borda rule provides little defense against coalitional manipulation.
Voting is a simple mechanism to combine together the preferences of multiple agents. Agents may try to manipulate the result of voting by mis-reporting their preferences. One barrier that might exist to such manipulation is computational complexity. In particular, it has been shown that it is NP-hard to compute how to manipulate a number of different voting rules. However, NP-hardness only bounds the worst-case complexity. Recent theoretical results suggest that manipulation may often be easy in practice. In this paper, we study empirically the manipulability of single transferable voting (STV) to determine if computational complexity is really a barrier to manipulation. STV was one of the first voting rules shown to be NP-hard. It also appears one of the harder voting rules to manipulate. We sample a number of distributions of votes including uniform and real world elections. In almost every election in our experiments, it was easy to compute how a single agent could manipulate the election or to prove that manipulation by a single agent was impossible.
We study decompositions of the global NVALUE constraint. Our main contribution is theoretical: we show that there are propagators for global constraints like NVALUE which decomposition can simulate with the same time complexity but with a much greater space complexity. This suggests that the benefit of a global propagator may often not be in saving time but in saving space. Our other theoretical contribution is to show for the first time that range consistency can be enforced on NVALUE with the same worst-case time complexity as bound consistency. Finally, the decompositions we study are readily encoded as linear inequalities. We are therefore able to use them in integer linear programs.
Max Restricted Path Consistency (maxRPC) is a local consistency for binary constraints that can achieve considerably stronger pruning than arc consistency. However, existing maxRRC algorithms suffer from overheads and redundancies as they can repeatedly perform many constraint checks without triggering any value deletions. In this paper we propose techniques that can boost the performance of maxRPC algorithms. These include the combined use of two data structures to avoid many redundant constraint checks, and heuristics for the efficient ordering and execution of certain operations. Based on these, we propose two closely related algorithms. The first one which is a maxRPC algorithm with optimal O(end^3) time complexity, displays good performance when used stand-alone, but is expensive to apply during search. The second one approximates maxRPC and has O(en^2d^4) time complexity, but a restricted version with O(end^4) complexity can be very efficient when used during search. Both algorithms have O(ed) space complexity. Experimental results demonstrate that the resulting methods constantly outperform previous algorithms for maxRPC, often by large margins, and constitute a more than viable alternative to arc consistency on many problems.
When agents are acting together, they may need a simple mechanism to decide on joint actions. One possibility is to have the agents express their preferences in the form of a ballot and use a voting rule to decide the winning action(s). Unfortunately, agents may try to manipulate such an election by misreporting their preferences. Fortunately, it has been shown that it is NP-hard to compute how to manipulate a number of different voting rules. However, NP-hardness only bounds the worst-case complexity. Recent theoretical results suggest that manipulation may often be easy in practice. To address this issue, I suggest studying empirically if computational complexity is in practice a barrier to manipulation. The basic tool used in my investigations is the identification of computational "phase transitions". Such an approach has been fruitful in identifying hard instances of propositional satisfiability and other NP-hard problems. I show that phase transition behaviour gives insight into the hardness of manipulating voting rules, increasing concern that computational complexity is indeed any sort of barrier. Finally, I look at the problem of computing manipulation of other, related problems like stable marriage and tournament problems.
The stable marriage problem has a wide variety of practical applications, ranging from matching resident doctors to hospitals, to matching students to schools, or more generally to any two-sided market. We consider a useful variation of the stable marriage problem, where the men and women express their preferences using a preference list with ties over a subset of the members of the other sex. Matchings are permitted only with people who appear in these preference lists. In this setting, we study the problem of finding a stable matching that marries as many people as possible. Stability is an envy-free notion: no man and woman who are not married to each other would both prefer each other to their partners or to being single. This problem is NP-hard. We tackle this problem using local search, exploiting properties of the problem to reduce the size of the neighborhood and to make local moves efficiently. Experimental results show that this approach is able to solve large problems, quickly returning stable matchings of large and often optimal size.
We consider a common type of symmetry where we have a matrix of decision variables with interchangeable rows and columns. A simple and efficient method to deal with such row and column symmetry is to post symmetry breaking constraints like DOUBLELEX and SNAKELEX. We provide a number of positive and negative results on posting such symmetry breaking constraints. On the positive side, we prove that we can compute in polynomial time a unique representative of an equivalence class in a matrix model with row and column symmetry if the number of rows (or of columns) is bounded and in a number of other special cases. On the negative side, we show that whilst DOUBLELEX and SNAKELEX are often effective in practice, they can leave a large number of symmetric solutions in the worst case. In addition, we prove that propagating DOUBLELEX completely is NP-hard. Finally we consider how to break row, column and value symmetry, correcting a result in the literature about the safeness of combining different symmetry breaking constraints. We end with the first experimental study on how much symmetry is left by DOUBLELEX and SNAKELEX on some benchmark problems.
We propose an online form of the cake cutting problem. This models situations where players arrive and depart during the process of dividing a resource. We show that well known fair division procedures like cut-and-choose and the Dubins-Spanier moving knife procedure can be adapted to apply to such online problems. We propose some desirable properties that online cake cutting procedures might possess like online forms of proportionality and envy-freeness, and identify which properties are in fact possessed by the different online cake procedures.
Symmetry is a common feature of many combinatorial problems. Unfortunately eliminating all symmetry from a problem is often computationally intractable. This paper argues that recent parameterized complexity results provide insight into that intractability and help identify special cases in which symmetry can be dealt with more tractably
We study propagation algorithms for the conjunction of two AllDifferent constraints. Solutions of an AllDifferent constraint can be seen as perfect matchings on the variable/value bipartite graph. Therefore, we investigate the problem of finding simultaneous bipartite matchings. We present an extension of the famous Hall theorem which characterizes when simultaneous bipartite matchings exists. Unfortunately, finding such matchings is NP-hard in general. However, we prove a surprising result that finding a simultaneous matching on a convex bipartite graph takes just polynomial time. Based on this theoretical result, we provide the first polynomial time bound consistency algorithm for the conjunction of two AllDifferent constraints. We identify a pathological problem on which this propagator is exponentially faster compared to existing propagators. Our experiments show that this new propagator can offer significant benefits over existing methods.
We show that global constraints on finite domains like all-different can be reformulated into answer set programs on which we achieve arc, bound or range consistency. These reformulations offer a number of other advantages beyond providing the power of global propagators to answer set programming. For example, they provide other constraints with access to the state of the propagator by sharing variables. Such sharing can be used to improve propagation between constraints. Experiments with these encodings demonstrate their promise.
The stable marriage problem is a well-known problem of matching men to women so that no man and woman, who are not married to each other, both prefer each other. Such a problem has a wide variety of practical applications, ranging from matching resident doctors to hospitals, to matching students to schools or more generally to any two-sided market. In the classical stable marriage problem, both men and women express a strict preference order over the members of the other sex, in a qualitative way. Here we consider stable marriage problems with quantitative preferences: each man (resp., woman) provides a score for each woman (resp., man). Such problems are more expressive than the classical stable marriage problems. Moreover, in some real-life situations it is more natural to express scores (to model, for example, profits or costs) rather than a qualitative preference ordering. In this context, we define new notions of stability and optimality, and we provide algorithms to find marriages which are stable and/or optimal according to these notions. While expressivity greatly increases by adopting quantitative preferences, we show that in most cases the desired solutions can be found by adapting existing algorithms for the classical stable marriage problem.
Symmetry can be used to help solve many problems. For instance, Einstein's famous 1905 paper ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") uses symmetry to help derive the laws of special relativity. In artificial intelligence, symmetry has played an important role in both problem representation and reasoning. I describe recent work on using symmetry to help solve constraint satisfaction problems. Symmetries occur within individual solutions of problems as well as between different solutions of the same problem. Symmetry can also be applied to the constraints in a problem to give new symmetric constraints. Reasoning about symmetry can speed up problem solving, and has led to the discovery of new results in both graph and number theory.
We define the concept of an internal symmetry. This is a symmety within a solution of a constraint satisfaction problem. We compare this to solution symmetry, which is a mapping between different solutions of the same problem. We argue that we may be able to exploit both types of symmetry when finding solutions. We illustrate the potential of exploiting internal symmetries on two benchmark domains: Van der Waerden numbers and graceful graphs. By identifying internal symmetries we are able to extend the state of the art in both cases.
In the context of Answer Set Programming, this paper investigates symmetry-breaking to eliminate symmetric parts of the search space and, thereby, simplify the solution process. We propose a reduction of disjunctive logic programs to a coloured digraph such that permutational symmetries can be constructed from graph automorphisms. Symmetries are then broken by introducing symmetry-breaking constraints. For this purpose, we formulate a preprocessor that integrates a graph automorphism system. Experiments demonstrate its computational impact.
One possible escape from the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is computational complexity. For example, it is NP-hard to compute if the STV rule can be manipulated. However, there is increasing concern that such results may not re ect the difficulty of manipulation in practice. In this tutorial, I survey recent results in this area.
Complexity theory is a useful tool to study computational issues surrounding the elicitation of preferences, as well as the strategic manipulation of elections aggregating together preferences of multiple agents. We study here the complexity of determining when we can terminate eliciting preferences, and prove that the complexity depends on the elicitation strategy. We show, for instance, that it may be better from a computational perspective to elicit all preferences from one agent at a time than to elicit individual preferences from multiple agents. We also study the connection between the strategic manipulation of an election and preference elicitation. We show that what we can manipulate affects the computational complexity of manipulation. In particular, we prove that there are voting rules which are easy to manipulate if we can change all of an agent's vote, but computationally intractable if we can change only some of their preferences. This suggests that, as with preference elicitation, a fine-grained view of manipulation may be informative. Finally, we study the connection between predicting the winner of an election and preference elicitation. Based on this connection, we identify a voting rule where it is computationally difficult to decide the probability of a candidate winning given a probability distribution over the votes.
We consider multi-agent systems where agents' preferences are aggregated via sequential majority voting: each decision is taken by performing a sequence of pairwise comparisons where each comparison is a weighted majority vote among the agents. Incompleteness in the agents' preferences is common in many real-life settings due to privacy issues or an ongoing elicitation process. In addition, there may be uncertainty about how the preferences are aggregated. For example, the agenda (a tree whose leaves are labelled with the decisions being compared) may not yet be known or fixed. We therefore study how to determine collectively optimal decisions (also called winners) when preferences may be incomplete, and when the agenda may be uncertain. We show that it is computationally easy to determine if a candidate decision always wins, or may win, whatever the agenda. On the other hand, it is computationally hard to know wheth er a candidate decision wins in at least one agenda for at least one completion of the agents' preferences. These results hold even if the agenda must be balanced so that each candidate decision faces the same number of majority votes. Such results are useful for reasoning about preference elicitation. They help understand the complexity of tasks such as determining if a decision can be taken collectively, as well as knowing if the winner can be manipulated by appropriately ordering the agenda.
For many voting rules, it is NP-hard to compute a successful manipulation. However, NP-hardness only bounds the worst-case complexity. Recent theoretical results suggest that manipulation may often be easy in practice. We study empirically the cost of manipulating the single transferable vote (STV) rule. This was one of the first rules shown to be NP-hard to manipulate. It also appears to be one of the harder rules to manipulate since it involves multiple rounds and since, unlike many other rules, it is NP-hard for a single agent to manipulate without weights on the votes or uncertainty about how the other agents have voted. In almost every election in our experiments, it was easy to compute how a single agent could manipulate the election or to prove that manipulation by a single agent was impossible. It remains an interesting open question if manipulation by a coalition of agents is hard to compute in practice.
In sports competitions, teams can manipulate the result by, for instance, throwing games. We show that we can decide how to manipulate round robin and cup competitions, two of the most popular types of sporting competitions in polynomial time. In addition, we show that finding the minimal number of games that need to be thrown to manipulate the result can also be determined in polynomial time. Finally, we show that there are several different variations of standard cup competitions where manipulation remains polynomial.
We present a comprehensive study of the use of value precedence constraints to break value symmetry. We first give a simple encoding of value precedence into ternary constraints that is both efficient and effective at breaking symmetry. We then extend value precedence to deal with a number of generalizations like wreath value and partial interchangeability. We also show that value precedence is closely related to lexicographical ordering. Finally, we consider the interaction between value precedence and symmetry breaking constraints for variable symmetries.
Tetravex is a widely played one person computer game in which you are given $n^2$ unit tiles, each edge of which is labelled with a number. The objective is to place each tile within a $n$ by $n$ square such that all neighbouring edges are labelled with an identical number. Unfortunately, playing Tetravex is computationally hard. More precisely, we prove that deciding if there is a tiling of the Tetravex board is NP-complete. Deciding where to place the tiles is therefore NP-hard. This may help to explain why Tetravex is a good puzzle. This result compliments a number of similar results for one person games involving tiling. For example, NP-completeness results have been shown for: the offline version of Tetris, KPlumber (which involves rotating tiles containing drawings of pipes to make a connected network), and shortest sliding puzzle problems. It raises a number of open questions. For example, is the infinite version Turing-complete? How do we generate Tetravex problems which are truly puzzling as random NP-complete problems are often surprising easy to solve? Can we observe phase transition behaviour? What about the complexity of the problem when it is guaranteed to have an unique solution? How do we generate puzzles with unique solutions?