Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · cs/0205073

Vote Elicitation: Complexity and Strategy-Proofness

Abstract

Preference elicitation is a central problem in AI, and has received significant attention in single-agent settings. It is also a key problem in multiagent systems, but has received little attention here so far. In this setting, the agents may have different preferences that often must be aggregated using voting. This leads to interesting issues because what, if any, information should be elicited from an agent depends on what other agents have revealed about their preferences so far. In this paper we study effective elicitation, and its impediments, for the most common voting protocols. It turns out that in the Single Transferable Vote protocol, even knowing when to terminate elicitation is mathcal NP-complete, while this is easy for all the other protocols under study. Even for these protocols, determining how to elicit effectively is NP-complete, even with perfect suspicions about how the agents will vote. The exception is the Plurality protocol where such effective elicitation is easy. We also show that elicitation introduces additional opportunities for strategic manipulation by the voters. We demonstrate how to curtail the space of elicitation schemes so that no such additional strategic issues arise.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vincent Conitzer, Tuomas Sandholm. 2002-05-29. Vote Elicitation: Complexity and Strategy-Proofness. https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0205073

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Project Submission Games in Participatory Budgeting

We introduce the framework of project submission games, capturing the behavior of project proposers in participatory budgeting (and multiwinner elections). Here, each proposer submits a subset of project proposals, aiming at maximizing the total cost of those that get funded. We focus on finding conditions under which pure Nash equilibria (NE) exist in our games, and on the complexity of checking whether they exist. We also seek algorithms for computing best responses for the proposers

cs.GT↗

Domination-Avoiding Learning Agents Cannot Collude

An influential paper of Calvano et al. empirically demonstrated that Q-learning agents spontaneously collude when placed as sellers that compete on prices in a natural market model. More recent results of Fish et al. empirically demonstrated that similar collusion happens with commercial LLMs. We formally prove that such collusion can also happen with external-regret-minimizing agents. We identify a very general class of agents, which we term Domination-Avoiding agents, that provably do not collude in such markets. This class contains all Mean-Based agents and all internal-regret-minimizing agents, as well as others such as Multiplicative-Weight agents with variable learning rate and contextual variants thereof. More generally we show that, in any game, this class of agents is guaranteed to jointly learn to almost never play strategies that are eliminated by repeated elimination of purely dominated strategies.

cs.GT↗

Settling the Complexity of Hylland--Zeckhauser Equilibria

The Hylland--Zeckhauser (HZ) mechanism is a foundational framework for allocating indivisible goods in one-sided matching markets via lotteries supported by competitive prices and equal artificial budgets. We resolve the exact computational complexity of the HZ scheme by proving that computing an exact HZ equilibrium is FIXP-complete, thereby settling a conjecture of Vazirani and Yannakakis. Notably, this hardness persists even when computing the equilibrium allocation alone. We establish our hardness result via a reduction that encodes quadratic fixed-point equations into a reciprocal variational inequality. On the algorithmic side, we present a deterministic polynomial-time approximation algorithm that achieves an additive error of $0.0755211 + δ$ for any $δ> 0$, significantly improving upon the previous $1/e$ guarantee.

cs.GT↗