Computing Manipulations of Ranking Systems

Ranking systems are widely used by agencies to rank agents, for example U.S. News & World Report ranks colleges. Such rankings are prone to manipulation by the agency (e.g. USNews) for publicity, and also by the agents (e.g. colleges) to get a better rank. We analyze the algorithmic aspects of manipulation in linear ranking systems of m agents using n features. Computing optimal manipulation for the ranking agency is NP-hard: we give a mixed integer linear program solution, and also an efficient linear programming heuristic that formulates the problem as a classification task. Computing optimal manipulations for ranked agents subject to a budget constraint is a minimax problem in a continuous space: we give a general O((m+ k)n2nmn1 logm) algorithm, where k is the number of linear constraints on the weight vector and an O(m(logm)2) algorithm for n = 2. We also present a large class of heuristic algorithms with approximation ratio n. We tested our algorithms on USNews data from the 2015 college rankings. Our algorithms compute agency and agent manipulation strategies in seconds. We present several interesting experiments on the ranking range of the top-100 colleges, including optimal spending plans for these colleges.

[1]  Tie-Yan Liu,et al.  Learning to rank for information retrieval , 2009, SIGIR.

[2]  Michael A. Trick,et al.  How hard is it to control an election? Math , 1992 .

[3]  Edoardo Amaldi,et al.  The Complexity and Approximability of Finding Maximum Feasible Subsystems of Linear Relations , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[5]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Control Complexity in Bucklin, Fallback, and Plurality Voting: An Experimental Approach , 2012, SEA.

[6]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  AI's War on Manipulation: Are We Winning? , 2010, AI Mag..

[7]  Omer Lev,et al.  Empirical analysis of plurality election equilibria , 2013, AAMAS.

[8]  John W. Chinneck,et al.  Fast Heuristics for the Maximum Feasible Subsystem Problem , 2001, INFORMS J. Comput..

[9]  Franco P. Preparata,et al.  The Densest Hemisphere Problem , 1978, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  The Possible Winner Problem with Uncertain Weights , 2012, ECAI.

[11]  Edoardo Amaldi,et al.  Randomized Relaxation Methods for the Maximum Feasible Subsystem Problem , 2005, IPCO.

[12]  Malik Magdon-Ismail,et al.  An analysis of optimal link bombs , 2012, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  John W. Chinneck,et al.  Computer Codes for the Analysis of Infeasible Linear Programs , 1996 .

[14]  Raimund Seidel,et al.  Constructing arrangements of lines and hyperplanes with applications , 1983, 24th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1983).

[15]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computing the optimal strategy to commit to , 2006, EC '06.

[16]  Toby Walsh,et al.  An Empirical Study of the Manipulability of Single Transferable Voting , 2010, ECAI.

[17]  Marc E. Pfetsch,et al.  Konrad-zuse-zentrum F ¨ Ur Informationstechnik Berlin Branch-and-cut for the Maximum Feasible Subsystem Problem Branch-and-cut for the Maximum Feasible Subsystem Problem , 2022 .

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

[19]  M. Trick,et al.  The computational difficulty of manipulating an election , 1989 .

[20]  R. Kuncl,et al.  Modeling Change and Variation in U.S. News & WorldReport College Rankings: What would it really take to be in the Top 20? , 2014 .

[21]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Using complexity to protect elections , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[22]  Sandip Sen,et al.  Voting for movies: the anatomy of a recommender system , 1999, AGENTS '99.