CMU Social choice 2: Manipulation. Teacher: Ariel Procaccia

Similar documents
CMU Social choice: Advanced manipulation. Teachers: Avrim Blum Ariel Procaccia (this time)

APPLIED MECHANISM DESIGN FOR SOCIAL GOOD

MATH 19-02: HW 5 TUFTS UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS SPRING 2018

Survey of Voting Procedures and Paradoxes

Combining Voting Rules Together

Algorithmic Game Theory Introduction to Mechanism Design

Efficient Algorithms for Hard Problems on Structured Electorates

APPLIED MECHANISM DESIGN FOR SOCIAL GOOD

Dominating Manipulations in Voting with Partial Information

Approximation algorithms and mechanism design for minimax approval voting

Probabilistic Aspects of Voting

Complexity of Unweighted Coalitional Manipulation Under Some Common Voting Rules

Strategy-Proofness on the Condorcet Domain

Non-Manipulable Domains for the Borda Count

Mechanism Design for Bounded Agents

An NTU Cooperative Game Theoretic View of Manipulating Elections

Voting Handout. Election from the text, p. 47 (for use during class)

Follow links for Class Use and other Permissions. For more information send to:

Partial lecture notes THE PROBABILITY OF VIOLATING ARROW S CONDITIONS

Nontransitive Dice and Arrow s Theorem

Social Choice. Jan-Michael van Linthoudt

Complexity of unweighted coalitional manipulation under some common voting rules

Voting. José M Vidal. September 29, Abstract. The problems with voting.

Ties Matter: Complexity of Voting Manipulation Revisited

13 Social choice B = 2 X X. is the collection of all binary relations on X. R = { X X : is complete and transitive}

Mechanism Design without Money

Frequent Manipulability of Elections: The Case of Two Voters

Computational Aspects of Strategic Behaviour in Elections with Top-Truncated Ballots

Social choice theory, Arrow s impossibility theorem and majority judgment

On the Strategy-proof Social Choice of Fixed-sized Subsets

Finite Dictatorships and Infinite Democracies

Recap Social Choice Fun Game Voting Paradoxes Properties. Social Choice. Lecture 11. Social Choice Lecture 11, Slide 1

6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 24: Decisions in Groups

Ties Matter: Complexity of Manipulation when Tie-breaking with a Random Vote

Voting Theory: Pairwise Comparison

Strategic Manipulability without Resoluteness or Shared Beliefs: Gibbard-Satterthwaite Generalized

Single-peaked consistency and its complexity

On Social Choice Theory

MAXIMAL POSSIBILITY AND MINIMAL DICTATORIAL COVERS OF DOMAINS

Coalitionally strategyproof functions depend only on the most-preferred alternatives.

Game Theory: Spring 2017

Social Choice and Mechanism Design - Part I.2. Part I.2: Social Choice Theory Summer Term 2011

Volume 31, Issue 1. Manipulation of the Borda rule by introduction of a similar candidate. Jérôme Serais CREM UMR 6211 University of Caen

Best reply dynamics for scoring rules

How Bad is Selfish Voting?

The Pairwise-Comparison Method

Resource Allocation via the Median Rule: Theory and Simulations in the Discrete Case

Dr. Y. İlker TOPCU. Dr. Özgür KABAK web.itu.edu.tr/kabak/

arxiv: v2 [cs.gt] 6 Jan 2015

DICTATORIAL DOMAINS. Navin Aswal University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA Shurojit Chatterji Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi, India and

arxiv: v2 [math.co] 29 Mar 2012

Unconditional Privacy in Social Choice

Probabilistic Possible Winner Determination

Mechanism Design for Multiagent Systems

CONNECTING PAIRWISE AND POSITIONAL ELECTION OUTCOMES

Chapter 1. The Mathematics of Voting

"Arrow s Theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem: A Unified Approach", by Phillip Reny. Economic Letters (70) (2001),

Lecture: Aggregation of General Biased Signals

arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 9 Apr 2015

Elections and Strategic Voting: Condorcet and Borda. P. Dasgupta E. Maskin

GROUP DECISION MAKING

A Smooth Transition From Powerlessness to Absolute Power

Logic and Social Choice Theory

Gibbard Satterthwaite Games

Facility Location with Variable and Dynamic Populations

Analysis of Boolean Functions

Winning probabilities in a pairwise lottery system with three alternatives

The Structure of Strategy-Proof Social Choice:

Social Choice and Social Networks. Aggregation of General Biased Signals (DRAFT)

Dependence and Independence in Social Choice Theory

PHIL 308S: Voting Theory and Fair Division

Arrow s Paradox. Prerna Nadathur. January 1, 2010

Theory of Mechanism Design

Antonio Quesada Universidad de Murcia. Abstract

3.1 Arrow s Theorem. We study now the general case in which the society has to choose among a number of alternatives

Improved Heuristic for Manipulation of Second-order Copeland Elections

Recap Social Choice Functions Fun Game Mechanism Design. Mechanism Design. Lecture 13. Mechanism Design Lecture 13, Slide 1

Stackelberg Voting Games: Computational Aspects and Paradoxes

SYSU Lectures on the Theory of Aggregation Lecture 2: Binary Aggregation with Integrity Constraints

Strategy-Proof Voting Rules over Restricted Domains

arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 1 May 2017

INTEGER PROGRAMMING AND ARROVIAN SOCIAL WELFARE FUNCTIONS

How Bad is Selfish Voting?

Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting

Preference Functions That Score Rankings and Maximum Likelihood Estimation

THE PRICE OF DECEPTION IN SOCIAL CHOICE. A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty. James P. Bailey

Social Dichotomy Functions (extended abstract)

Algorithmic Game Theory and Applications

A C B D D B C A C B A D

Approximation Algorithms and Mechanism Design for Minimax Approval Voting 1

Introduction to Formal Epistemology Lecture 5

Freedom and Voting Power

How Credible is the Prediction of a Party-Based Election?

Mechanism Design and Truthful Algorithms

Primarily about Primaries

Points-based rules respecting a pairwise-change-symmetric ordering

The Best Way to Choose a Winner

Spring 2016 Indiana Collegiate Mathematics Competition (ICMC) Exam

A MAXIMAL DOMAIN FOR STRATEGY-PROOF AND NO-VETOER RULES IN THE MULTI-OBJECT CHOICE MODEL

Coalitional Structure of the Muller-Satterthwaite Theorem

Transcription:

CMU 15-896 Social choice 2: Manipulation Teacher: Ariel Procaccia

Reminder: Voting Set of voters Set of alternatives Each voter has a ranking over the alternatives means that voter prefers to Preference profile = collection of all voters rankings Voting rule = function from preference profiles to alternatives Important: so far voters were honest! 2

Manipulation Using Borda count Top profile: b wins Bottom profile: a wins By changing his vote, voter 3 achieves a better outcome! 1 2 3 b b a a a b c c c d d d 1 2 3 b b a a a c c c d d d b 3

Borda responds to critics My scheme is intended only for honest men! Random 18 th Century French Dude 4

Strategyproofness A voting rule is strategyproof (SP) if a voter can never benefit from lying about his preferences: Maximum value of which plurality is SP? for 5

Strategyproofness A voting rule is dictatorial if there is a voter who always gets his most preferred alternative A voting rule is constant if the same alternative is always chosen Constant functions and dictatorships are SP Dictatorship Constant function 6

Gibbard-Satterthwaite A voting rule is onto if any alternative can win Theorem (Gibbard-Satterthwaite): If then any voting rule that is SP and onto is dictatorial In other words, any voting rule that is onto and nondictatorial is manipulable Gibbard Satterthwaite 7

Proof sketch of G-S Lemmas (prove in HW1): o Strong monotonicity: is SP rule, profile,. Then for all profiles s.t. o Pareto optimality: is SP+onto rule, profile. If for all then Let us assume that, and neutrality: for all 8

Proof sketch of G-S Say and Consider the following profile 1 2 3 4 a b c d b c d a c d a b d a b c e e e e Pareto optimality is not the winner Suppose 9

Proof sketch of G-S 1 2 3 4 a b c d b c d a c d a b d a b c e e e e 1 2 3 4 a d d d d a a a b b b b c c c c e e e e Strong monotonicity 10

1 2 3 4 a d d d d a a a b b b b c c c c e e e e 1 2 3 4 a d d d d b a a b c b b c e c c e a e e Poll 1: How many options are there for? 1. 1 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 11

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 a d d d d b a a b c b b c e c c e a e e a d d d d b b a b c c b c e e c e a a e Pareto optimality,, [SP ] Strong monotonicity for every where ranks first Neutrality is a dictator a d d d d b b b b c c c c e e e e a a a 12

Circumventing G-S Restricted preferences (this lecture) Money mechanism design (later) Computational complexity (this lecture) 13

Single peaked preferences We want to choose a location for a public good (e.g., library) on a street Alternatives = possible locations Each voter has an ideal location (peak) The closer the library is to a voter s peak, the happier he is 14

Single peaked preferences Leftmost point mechanism: return the leftmost point Midpoint mechanism: return the average of leftmost and rightmost points Which of the two mechanisms is SP? 15

The median Select the median peak The median is a Condorcet winner! The median is onto The median is nondictatorial 16

The median is SP 17

Complexity of manipulation Manipulation is always possible in theory But can we design voting rules where it is difficult in practice? Are there reasonable voting rules where manipulation is a hard computational problem? [Bartholdi et al., SC&W 1989] 18

The computational problem -MANIPULATION problem: o o Given votes of nonmanipulators and a preferred candidate Can manipulator cast vote that makes uniquely win under? Example: Borda, 1 2 3 b b a a c c d d 1 2 3 b b a a a c c c d d d b 19

A greedy algorithm Rank in first place While there are unranked alternatives: o o If there is an alternative that can be placed in next spot without preventing from winning, place this alternative Otherwise return false 20

Example: Borda 1 2 3 b b a a a c c d d 1 2 3 b b a a a c c c b d d 1 2 3 b b a a a b c c d d 1 2 3 b b a a a c c c d d d 1 2 3 b b a a a c c c d d 1 2 3 b b a a a c c c d d d b 21

Example: Copeland 1 2 3 4 5 a b e e a b a c c c d b b d e a a e c d d Preference profile a b c d e a - 2 3 5 3 b 3-2 4 2 c 2 2-3 1 d 0 0 1-2 e 2 2 3 2 - Pairwise elections 22

Example: Copeland 1 2 3 4 5 a b e e a b a c c c c d b b d e a a e c d d Preference profile a b c d e a - 2 3 5 3 b 3-2 4 2 c 2 3-4 2 d 0 0 1-2 e 2 2 3 2 - Pairwise elections 23

Example: Copeland 1 2 3 4 5 a b e e a b a c c c c d b b d d e a a e c d d Preference profile a b c d e a - 2 3 5 3 b 3-2 4 2 c 2 3-4 2 d 0 1 1-3 e 2 2 3 2 - Pairwise elections 24

Example: Copeland 1 2 3 4 5 a b e e a b a c c c c d b b d d e a a e e c d d Preference profile a b c d e a - 2 3 5 3 b 3-2 4 2 c 2 3-4 2 d 0 1 1-3 e 2 3 3 2 - Pairwise elections 25

Example: Copeland 1 2 3 4 5 a b e e a b a c c c c d b b d d e a a e e c d d b Preference profile a b c d e a - 2 3 5 3 b 3-2 4 2 c 2 3-4 2 d 0 1 1-3 e 2 3 3 2 - Pairwise elections 26

When does the alg work? Theorem [Bartholdi et al., SCW 89]: Fix and the votes of other voters. Let be a rule s.t. function such that: 1. For every, chooses a candidate that uniquely maximizes, 2. : :,, Then the algorithm always decides -MANIPULATION correctly What is for plurality? 27

Proof of Theorem Suppose the algorithm failed, producing a partial ranking Assume for contradiction makes win alternatives not ranked in highest ranked alternative in according to Complete by adding others arbitrarily first, then Output of alg, 28

Proof of Theorem Property 2 Property 1 and makes winner the Property 2 Conclusion:, so the alg could have inserted next Output of alg, 29

Voting rules that are hard to manipulate Natural rules o Copeland with second order tie breaking [Bartholdi et al., SCW 89] o STV [Bartholdi&Orlin, SCW 91] o Ranked Pairs [Xia et al., IJCAI 09] Order pairwise elections by decreasing strength of victory Successively lock in results of pairwise elections unless it leads to cycle Winner is the top ranked candidate in final order Can also tweak easy to manipulate voting rules [Conitzer&Sandholm, IJCAI 03]

Example: ranked pairs a 6 b 8 12 10 4 d 2 c 31

Example: ranked pairs a 6 b 8 4 10 d 2 c 32

Example: ranked pairs a 6 b 8 4 d 2 c 33

Example: ranked pairs a 6 b 4 d 2 c 34

Example: ranked pairs a b 4 d 2 c 35

Example: ranked pairs a b d 2 c 36

Example: ranked pairs a b d c 37