Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userBad cycles and chaos in iterative Approval Voting
169
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Benoit Kloeckner
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Beno^it Kloeckner
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We consider synchronized iterative voting in the Approval Voting system. We give examples with a Condorcet winner where voters apply simple, sincere, consistent strategies but where cycles appear that can prevent the election of the Condorcet winner, or that can even lead to the election of a consensual loser, rejected in all circumstances by a majority of voters. We conduct numerical experiments to determine how rare such cycles are. It turns out that when voters apply Lasliers Leader Rule they are quite uncommon, and we prove that they cannot happen when voters preferences are modeled by a one-dimensional culture. However a slight variation of the Leader Rule accounting for possible draws in voters preferences witnesses much more bad cycle, especially in a one-dimensional culture.Then we introduce a continuous-space model in which we show that these cycles are stable under perturbation. Last, we consider models of voters behavior featuring a competition between strategic behavior and reluctance to vote for candidates that are ranked low in their preferences. We show that in some cases, this leads to chaotic behavior, with fractal attractors and positive entropy.
rate research
Read More
Justified representation (JR) is a standard notion of representation in multiwinner approval voting. Not only does a JR committee always exist, but previous work has also shown through experiments that the JR condition can typically be fulfilled by groups of fewer than $k$ candidates. In this paper, we study such groups -- known as $n/k$-justifying groups -- both theoretically and empirically. First, we show that under the impartial culture model, $n/k$-justifying groups of size less than $k/2$ are likely to exist, which implies that the number of JR committees is usually large. We then present efficient approximation algorithms that compute a small $n/k$-justifying group for any given instance, and a polynomial-time exact algorithm when the instance admits a tree representation. In addition, we demonstrate that small $n/k$-justifying groups can often be useful for obtaining a gender-balanced JR committee even though the problem is NP-hard.
We study sincere-strategy preference-based approval voting (SP-AV), a system proposed by Brams and Sanver [Electoral Studies, 25(2):287-305, 2006], and here adjusted so as to coerce admissibility of the votes (rather than excluding inadmissible votes a priori), with respect to procedural control. In such control scenarios, an external agent seeks to change the outcome of an election via actions such as adding/deleting/partitioning either candidates or voters. SP-AV combines the voters preference rankings with their approvals of candidates, where in elections with at least two candidates the voters approval strategies are adjusted--if needed--to approve of their most-preferred candidate and to disapprove of their least-preferred candidate. This rule coerces admissibility of the votes even in the presence of control actions, and hybridizes, in effect, approval with pluralitiy voting. We prove that this system is computationally resistant (i.e., the corresponding control problems are NP-hard) to 19 out of 22 types of constructive and destructive control. Thus, SP-AV has more resistances to control than is currently known for any other natural voting system with a polynomial-time winner problem. In particular, SP-AV is (after Copeland voting, see Faliszewski et al. [AAIM-2008, Springer LNCS 5034, pp. 165-176, 2008]) the second natural voting system with an easy winner-determination procedure that is known to have full resistance to constructive control, and unlike Copeland voting it in addition displays broad resistance to destructive control.
Shortlisting is the task of reducing a long list of alternatives to a (smaller) set of best or most suitable alternatives from which a final winner will be chosen. Shortlisting is often used in the nomination process of awards or in recommender systems to display featured objects. In this paper, we analyze shortlisting methods that are based on approval data, a common type of preferences. Furthermore, we assume that the size of the shortlist, i.e., the number of best or most suitable alternatives, is not fixed but determined by the shortlisting method. We axiomatically analyze established and new shortlisting methods and complement this analysis with an experimental evaluation based on biased voters and noisy quality estimates. Our results lead to recommendations which shortlisting methods to use, depending on the desired properties.
Gradient descent is arguably one of the most popular online optimization methods with a wide array of applications. However, the standard implementation where agents simultaneously update their strategies yields several undesirable properties; strategies diverge away from equilibrium and regret grows over time. In this paper, we eliminate these negative properties by introducing a different implementation to obtain finite regret via arbitrary fixed step-size. We obtain this surprising property by having agents take turns when updating their strategies. In this setting, we show that an agent that uses gradient descent obtains bounded regret -- regardless of how their opponent updates their strategies. Furthermore, we show that in adversarial settings that agents strategies are bounded and cycle when both are using the alternating gradient descent algorithm.
We analyse strategic, complete information, sequential voting with ordinal preferences over the alternatives. We consider several voting mechanisms: plurality voting and approval voting with deterministic or uniform tie-breaking rules. We show that strategic voting in these voting procedures may lead to a very undesirable outcome: Condorcet winning alternative might be rejected, Condorcet losing alternative might be elected, and Pareto dominated alternative might be elected. These undesirable phenomena occur already with four alternatives and a small number of voters. For the case of three alternatives we present positive and negative results.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
