Election with Bribed Voter Uncertainty: Hardness and Approximation Algorithm

Bribery in election (or computational social choice in general) is an important problem that has received a considerable amount of attention. In the classic bribery problem, the briber (or attacker) bribes some voters in attempting to make the briber's designated candidate win an election. In this paper, we introduce a novel variant of the bribery problem, "Election with Bribed Voter Uncertainty" or BVU for short, accommodating the uncertainty that the vote of a bribed voter may or may not be counted. This uncertainty occurs either because a bribed voter may not cast its vote in fear of being caught, or because a bribed voter is indeed caught and therefore its vote is discarded. As a first step towards ultimately understanding and addressing this important problem, we show that it does not admit any multiplicative $O(1)$-approximation algorithm modulo standard complexity assumptions. We further show that there is an approximation algorithm that returns a solution with an additive-$\epsilon$ error in FPT time for any fixed $\epsilon$.

[1]  E. Stein,et al.  Real Analysis: Measure Theory, Integration, and Hilbert Spaces , 2005 .

[2]  Michael R. Fellows,et al.  Fixed-parameter intractability , 1992, [1992] Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference.

[3]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Taking the final step to a full dichotomy of the possible winner problem in pure scoring rules , 2010, Inf. Process. Lett..

[4]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Determining Possible and Necessary Winners under Common Voting Rules Given Partial Orders , 2008, AAAI.

[5]  Yann Chevaleyre,et al.  Possible Winners when New Candidates Are Added: The Case of Scoring Rules , 2010, AAAI.

[6]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Llull and Copeland Voting Computationally Resist Bribery and Constructive Control , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[7]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Voting procedures with incomplete preferences , 2005 .

[8]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  The complexity of probabilistic lobbying , 2009, Discret. Optim..

[9]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  How Hard Is Bribery in Elections? , 2006, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[10]  Jérôme Monnot,et al.  Possible winners when new alternatives join: new results coming up! , 2011, AAMAS.

[11]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Multimode Control Attacks on Elections , 2009, IJCAI.

[12]  Rolf Niedermeier,et al.  A logic for causal reasoning , 2003, IJCAI 2003.

[13]  Andrew Lin,et al.  The Complexity of Manipulating k-Approval Elections , 2010, ICAART.

[14]  Edith Hemaspaandra,et al.  Bribery and voter control under voting-rule uncertainty , 2014, AAMAS.

[15]  David C. Parkes,et al.  A Complexity-of-Strategic-Behavior Comparison between Schulze's Rule and Ranked Pairs , 2012, AAAI.

[16]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Computational complexity of two variants of the possible winner problem , 2011, AAMAS.

[17]  A. C. Berry The accuracy of the Gaussian approximation to the sum of independent variates , 1941 .

[18]  Arvind Narayanan,et al.  When the cookie meets the blockchain: Privacy risks of web payments via cryptocurrencies , 2017, Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol..

[19]  Andrew Klapper,et al.  On the complexity of bribery and manipulation in tournaments with uncertain information , 2012, J. Appl. Log..

[20]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Handbook of Computational Social Choice , 2016 .

[21]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Approximability of Manipulating Elections , 2008, AAAI.

[22]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Complexity of manipulation, bribery, and campaign management in Bucklin and fallback voting , 2013, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[23]  Lirong Xia,et al.  Computing the margin of victory for various voting rules , 2012, EC '12.

[24]  Nadja Betzler,et al.  Towards a dichotomy for the Possible Winner problem in elections based on scoring rules , 2009, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[25]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Possible Winners in Noisy Elections , 2012, AAAI.

[26]  Michael R. Fellows,et al.  Fixed-Parameter Tractability and Completeness II: On Completeness for W[1] , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..