k-Majority Digraphs and the Hardness of Voting with a Constant Number of Voters

Many hardness results in computational social choice make use of the fact that every directed graph may be induced as the pairwise majority relation of some preference profile. However, this fact requires a number of voters that is almost linear in the number of alternatives. It is therefore unclear whether these results remain intact when the number of voters is bounded, as is, for example, typically the case in search engine aggregation settings. In this paper, we provide a systematic study of majority digraphs for a constant number of voters resulting in analytical, experimental, and complexity-theoretic insights. First, we characterize the set of digraphs that can be induced by two and three voters, respectively, and give sufficient conditions for larger numbers of voters. Second, we present a surprisingly efficient implementation via SAT solving for computing the minimal number of voters that is required to induce a given digraph and experimentally evaluate how many voters are required to induce the majority digraphs of real-world and generated preference profiles. Finally, we leverage our sufficient conditions to show that the winner determination problem of various well-known voting rules remains hard even when there is only a small constant number of voters. In particular, we show that Kemeny's rule is hard to evaluate for 7 voters, while previous methods could only establish such a result for constant even numbers of voters.

[1]  Felix Brandt,et al.  Minimal extending sets in tournaments , 2014, Math. Soc. Sci..

[2]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  A Richer Understanding of the Complexity of Election Systems , 2006, Fundamental Problems in Computing.

[3]  A. Slinko,et al.  Exploratory Analysis of Similarities Between Social Choice Rules , 2006 .

[4]  Richard Edwin Stearns,et al.  The Voting Problem , 1959 .

[5]  J. Marden Analyzing and Modeling Rank Data , 1996 .

[6]  Klaudia Frankfurter Computers And Intractability A Guide To The Theory Of Np Completeness , 2016 .

[7]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  Banks winners in tournaments are difficult to recognize , 2003, Soc. Choice Welf..

[8]  Rolf Niedermeier,et al.  Weighted Tournament Solutions , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[9]  Susan A. Murphy,et al.  Monographs on statistics and applied probability , 1990 .

[10]  Craig A. Tovey,et al.  Smallest tournaments not realizable by $${\frac{2}{3}}$$-majority voting , 2009, Soc. Choice Welf..

[11]  S. Shapiro,et al.  Mathematics without Numbers , 1993 .

[12]  Paul D. Seymour,et al.  A counterexample to a conjecture of Schwartz , 2013, Soc. Choice Welf..

[13]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

[14]  Anders Yeo,et al.  The Minimum Feedback Arc Set Problem is NP-Hard for Tournaments , 2006, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing.

[15]  Xiaotie Deng,et al.  On the complexity of crossings in permutations , 2009, Discret. Math..

[16]  Joseph S. Verducci,et al.  Probability models on rankings. , 1991 .

[17]  H. Young,et al.  A Consistent Extension of Condorcet’s Election Principle , 1978 .

[18]  Olivier Hudry,et al.  On the complexity of Slater's problems , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Dror Fidler A Recurrence for Bounds on Dominating Sets in k-Majority Tournaments , 2011, Electron. J. Comb..

[20]  Brendan D. McKay,et al.  Practical graph isomorphism, II , 2013, J. Symb. Comput..

[21]  M. Yannakakis The Complexity of the Partial Order Dimension Problem , 1982 .

[22]  Armin Biere Lingeling, Plingeling and Treengeling Entering the SAT Competition 2013 , 2013 .

[23]  T. Tideman,et al.  Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules , 1987 .

[24]  R. Graham,et al.  A Constructive Solution to a Tournament Problem , 1971, Canadian Mathematical Bulletin.

[25]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[26]  Felix Brandt,et al.  On the structure of stable tournament solutions , 2016, Economic Theory.

[27]  Ross M. McConnell,et al.  Linear-time modular decomposition of directed graphs , 2005, Discret. Appl. Math..

[28]  J. Moon Topics on tournaments , 1968 .

[29]  Jean-François Laslier,et al.  In Silico Voting Experiments , 2010 .

[30]  Felix Brandt,et al.  On the Discriminative Power of Tournament Solutions , 2014, OR.

[31]  A. Lempel,et al.  Transitive Orientation of Graphs and Identification of Permutation Graphs , 1971, Canadian Journal of Mathematics.

[32]  Felix Brandt,et al.  Minimal stable sets in tournaments , 2008, J. Econ. Theory.

[33]  J. Banks,et al.  Positive Political Theory I: Collective Preference , 1998 .

[34]  C. L. Mallows NON-NULL RANKING MODELS. I , 1957 .

[35]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Automated Search for Impossibility Theorems in Social Choice Theory: Ranking Sets of Objects , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[36]  Craig A. Tovey,et al.  A simplified NP-complete satisfiability problem , 1984, Discret. Appl. Math..

[37]  Olivier Hudry A note on “Banks winners in tournaments are difficult to recognize” by G. J. Woeginger , 2004, Soc. Choice Welf..

[38]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Elections with Few Voters: Candidate Control Can Be Easy , 2014, AAAI.

[39]  Moni Naor,et al.  Rank aggregation methods for the Web , 2001, WWW '01.

[40]  Felix Brandt,et al.  Tournament Solutions , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[41]  Wojciech A. Trybulec Partially Ordered Sets , 1990 .

[42]  Lawrence G. Sager Handbook of Computational Social Choice , 2015 .

[43]  Felix Brandt,et al.  On the Fixed-Parameter Tractability of Composition-Consistent Tournament Solutions , 2011, IJCAI.

[44]  Felix A. Fischer,et al.  The Price of Neutrality for the Ranked Pairs Method , 2012, AAAI.

[45]  G. S. Tseitin On the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus , 1983 .

[46]  Noga Alon,et al.  Ranking Tournaments , 2006, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[47]  Felix Brandt,et al.  A tournament of order 24 with two disjoint TEQ-retentive sets , 2013, ArXiv.

[48]  Jean-François Laslier,et al.  Tournament Solutions And Majority Voting , 1997 .

[49]  L. Moser,et al.  On the representation of directed graphs as unions of orderings , 1964 .

[50]  Miguel Angel Fiol Mora A note on the voting problem. , 1992 .

[51]  Olivier Hudry,et al.  NP-hardness results for the aggregation of linear orders into median orders , 2008, Ann. Oper. Res..

[52]  Nicholas Mattei,et al.  An Empirical Study of Voting Rules and Manipulation with Large Datasets , 2012 .

[53]  Noga Alon,et al.  Dominating sets in k-majority tournaments , 2006, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B.

[54]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate? , 2007, J. ACM.

[55]  Jrg Rothe,et al.  Economics and Computation, An Introduction to Algorithmic Game Theory, Computational Social Choice, and Fair Division , 2015, Economics and Computation.

[56]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computing Slater Rankings Using Similarities among Candidates , 2006, AAAI.

[57]  M. A. Fiol A note on the voting problem , 2012 .

[58]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  Realizing Small Tournaments Through Few Permutations , 2013, Acta Cybern..

[59]  P. Ordeshook The Spatial Analysis of Elections and Committees: Four Decades of Research , 1993 .

[60]  David C. Mcgarvey A THEOREMI ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF VOTING PARADOXES , 1953 .

[61]  Felix A. Fischer,et al.  A computational analysis of the tournament equilibrium set , 2008, Soc. Choice Welf..