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

Zack Fitzsimmons

Zack Fitzsimmons contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computer Science and Game TheoryComputational ComplexityMultiagent Systems

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
3close 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

3 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
preprint2020arXiv

Incomplete Preferences in Single-Peaked Electorates

Incomplete preferences are likely to arise in real-world preference aggregation scenarios. This paper deals with determining whether an incomplete preference profile is single-peaked. This is valuable information since many intractable voting problems become tractable given single-peaked preferences. We prove that the problem of recognizing single-peakedness is \NP-complete for incomplete profiles consisting of partial orders. Despite this intractability result, we find several polynomial-time algorithms for reasonably restricted settings. In particular, we give polynomial-time recognition algorithms for weak orders, which can be viewed as preferences with indifference.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Selecting Voting Locations for Fun and Profit

While manipulative attacks on elections have been well-studied, only recently has attention turned to attacks that account for geographic information, which are extremely common in the real world. The most well known in the media is gerrymandering, in which district border-lines are changed to increase a party's chance to win, but a different geographical manipulation involves influencing the election by selecting the location of polling places, as many people are not willing to go to any distance to vote. In this paper we initiate the study of this manipulation. We find that while it is easy to manipulate the selection of polling places on the line, it becomes difficult already on the plane or in the case of more than two candidates. Moreover, we show that for more than two candidates the problem is inapproximable. However, we find a few restricted cases on the plane where some algorithms perform well. Finally, we discuss how existing results for standard control actions hold in the geographic setting, consider additional control actions in the geographic setting, and suggest directions for future study.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access