Shahar Dobzinski (Hebrew U) Ariel D. Procaccia (MS Israel R&D Center)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Sep 16, 2013 Lirong Xia Computational social choice The easy-to-compute axiom.
Advertisements

Sep 15, 2014 Lirong Xia Computational social choice The easy-to-compute axiom.
1 AI and Economics: The Dynamic Duo Ariel Procaccia Center for Research on Computation and Society Harvard SEAS AI AND ECONOMICS DYNAMIC DUO THE.
On the Robustness of Preference Aggregation in Noisy Environments Ariel D. Procaccia, Jeffrey S. Rosenschein and Gal A. Kaminka.
Ioannis Caragiannis, Jason A. Covey, Michal Feldman, Christopher M. Homan, Christos Kaklamanis, Nikos Karanikolask, Ariel D. Procaccia, Je ff rey S. Rosenschein.
Learning Voting Trees Ariel D. Procaccia, Aviv Zohar, Yoni Peleg, Jeffrey S. Rosenschein.
Voting and social choice Vincent Conitzer
Algorithmic Game Theory Uri Feige Robi Krauthgamer Moni Naor Lecture 9: Social Choice Lecturer: Moni Naor.
Speaker: Ariel Procaccia 1 Joint work with: Ioannis Caragiannis 2, Jason Covey 3, Michal Feldman 1, Chris Homan 3, Christos Kaklamanis 2, Nikos Karanikolas.
Mark Wang John Sturm Sanjeev Kulkarni Paul Cuff.  Basic Background – What is the problem?  Condorcet = IIA  Survey Data  Pairwise Boundaries = No.
How “impossible” is it to design a Voting rule? Angelina Vidali University of Athens.
Complexity of manipulating elections with few candidates Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm Carnegie Mellon University Computer Science Department.
Computing Kemeny and Slater Rankings Vincent Conitzer (Joint work with Andrew Davenport and Jayant Kalagnanam at IBM Research.)
Arrow’s impossibility theorem EC-CS reading group Kenneth Arrow Journal of Political Economy, 1950.
Sep 25, 2014 Lirong Xia Computational social choice Statistical approaches.
Approximately Strategy-Proof Voting Eleanor BirrellRafael Pass Cornell University.
Manipulation Toby Walsh NICTA and UNSW. Manipulation Constructive  Can we change result so a given candidate wins Destructive  Can we change result.
Socially desirable approximations for Dodgson’s voting rule Ioannis Caragiannis (University of Patras) Christos Kaklamanis (University of Patras) Nikos.
Generalized Scoring Rules Paper by Lirong Xia and Vincent Conitzer Presentation by Yosef Treitman.
Complexity of Computing the Margin of Victory for Various Voting Rules CAEC, Nov. 18, 2011 Ronald L. RivestEmily ShenLirong Xia.
Using computational hardness as a barrier against manipulation Vincent Conitzer
Using computational hardness as a barrier against manipulation Vincent Conitzer
The Distortion of Cardinal Preferences in Voting Ariel D. Procaccia and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein.
Approximability and Inapproximability of Dodgson and Young Elections Ariel D. Procaccia, Michal Feldman and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein.
On the Limits of Dictatorial Classification Reshef Meir School of Computer Science and Engineering, Hebrew University Joint work with Shaull Almagor, Assaf.
Ariel D. Procaccia (Microsoft)  Best advisor award goes to...  Thesis is about computational social choice Approximation Learning Manipulation BEST.
Speaker: Ariel Procaccia Joint work with: Michael Zuckerman, Jeff Rosenschein Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Ties Matter: Complexity of Voting Manipulation Revisited based on joint work with Svetlana Obraztsova (NTU/PDMI) and Noam Hazon (CMU) Edith Elkind (Nanyang.
Strategy-Proof Classification Reshef Meir School of Computer Science and Engineering, Hebrew University A joint work with Ariel. D. Procaccia and Jeffrey.
CPS Voting and social choice
Social choice theory = preference aggregation = voting assuming agents tell the truth about their preferences Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science.
How Hard Is It To Manipulate Voting? Edith Elkind, Princeton Helger Lipmaa, HUT.
Approximation algorithms and mechanism design for minimax approval voting Ioannis Caragiannis Dimitris Kalaitzis University of Patras Vangelis Markakis.
Junta Distributions and the Average Case Complexity of Manipulating Elections A. D. Procaccia & J. S. Rosenschein.
Reshef Meir Jeff Rosenschein Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Maria Polukarov Nick Jennings University of Southampton, United Kingdom COMSOC 2010,
Complexity of unweighted coalitional manipulation under some common voting rules Lirong XiaVincent Conitzer COMSOC08, Sep. 3-5, 2008 TexPoint fonts used.
Automated Design of Voting Rules by Learning From Examples Ariel D. Procaccia, Aviv Zohar, Jeffrey S. Rosenschein.
Reshef Meir School of Computer Science and Engineering Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel Joint work with Maria Polukarov, Jeffery S. Rosenschein and.
Social choice theory = preference aggregation = truthful voting Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science Department Carnegie Mellon University.
Strategic Behavior in Multi-Winner Elections A follow-up on previous work by Ariel Procaccia, Aviv Zohar and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein Reshef Meir The School.
Sep 26, 2013 Lirong Xia Computational social choice Statistical approaches.
Stackelberg Voting Games John Postl James Thompson.
Introduction complexity has been suggested as a means of precluding strategic behavior. Previous studies have shown that some voting protocols are hard.
Social choice (voting) Vincent Conitzer > > > >
Strategy-Proof Classification Reshef Meir School of Computer Science and Engineering, Hebrew University A joint work with Ariel. D. Procaccia and Jeffrey.
Voting Geometry: A Mathematical Study of Voting Methods and Their Properties Alan T. Sherman Dept. of CSEE, UMBC March 27, 2006.
Arrow’s Theorem The search for the perfect election decision procedure.
An Algorithm for the Coalitional Manipulation Problem under Maximin Michael Zuckerman, Omer Lev and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein AAMAS’11.
An Algorithm for the Coalitional Manipulation Problem under Maximin Michael Zuckerman, Omer Lev and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein (Simulations by Amitai Levy)
Mechanism Design CS 886 Electronic Market Design University of Waterloo.
Elections and Strategic Voting: Condorcet and Borda E. Maskin Harvard University.
1 Elections and Manipulations: Ehud Friedgut, Gil Kalai, and Noam Nisan Hebrew University of Jerusalem and EF: U. of Toronto, GK: Yale University, NN:
Junta Distributions and the Average-Case Complexity of Manipulating Elections A presentation by Jeremy Clark Ariel D. Procaccia Jeffrey S. Rosenschein.
Great Theoretical Ideas in Computer Science.
Social choice theory = preference aggregation = voting assuming agents tell the truth about their preferences Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science.
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Question: Is there a public decision making process, voting method, or “Social Welfare Function” (SWF) that will tell us.
How Should Presidents Be Elected? E. Maskin Institute for Advanced Study.
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
0 Fall, 2016 Lirong Xia Computational social choice The easy-to-compute axiom.
Model n voters, m candidates
Social choice theory = preference aggregation = voting assuming agents tell the truth about their preferences Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science.
Applied Mechanism Design For Social Good
Introduction If we assume
1.3 The Borda Count Method.
Manipulation Lirong Xia Fall, Manipulation Lirong Xia Fall, 2016.
The Combinatorics of Voting Paradoxes
Voting Preference Ballots and Preference Schedules
Voting and social choice
Computational social choice
CPS Voting and social choice
Presentation transcript:

Shahar Dobzinski (Hebrew U) Ariel D. Procaccia (MS Israel R&D Center)

 Set of voters {1,...,n}  Set of m alternatives {a,b,c...}  Each i has linear order < i over alternatives  Preference profile: a vector < of rankings Voter 1Voter 2Voter 3 a b c a c b b a c 2

 Voting rule: a mapping f from preference profiles to alternatives; designates winner  f is strategyproof (SP) if  <,  i,  < i ’ f(< i ’,< -i )  i f(<)  f is dictatorial if  i s.t.  <, f(<)=top(< i )  Theorem (Gibbard-Satterthwaite): Let m  3. Any SP and onto rule is dictatorial. 3

 [BTT89] Circumvent G-S using Computational Complexity  Many worst-case hardness results  Are there voting rules that are usually hard to manipulate?  Recent typical-case tractability results: Algorithmic [PR07,CS06,ZPR08] Descriptive [PR07b,XC08] 4

 “Randomized algorithm”: choose a random manipulation  Given “reasonable” voting rule, works with polynomially small prob. w.r.t. “many” preference profiles  Good prob. of success by repeating  [FKN08] This is true for neutral voting rules if m=3  [XC08b] This is true, under arguable conditions on voting rule, for any constant m 5

 f is  -strategyproof if  i, Pr[ f(<) < i f(< i ’,< -i ) ]    f is  -dictatorial if  i, Pr[ f(<)  top(< i ) ]    f is Pareto-optimal (PO) if [  i, y < i x ]  f(<)  y  Main Theorem: Let n=2, m  3. If f is PO and  -SP, then f is poly(m)  -dictatorial. 6

Voter 1Voter 2 a a a a c c d d e e c c d d e e b b a a a a b b 7

 Comparison with [FKN08]  Future work: Prove general theorem (duh...) 8