A preferential domain is a collection of sets of preferences which are linear orders over a set of alternatives. These domains have been studied extensively in social choice theory due to both its practical importance and theoretical elegance. Examples of some extensively studied preferential domains include single peaked, single crossing, Euclidean, etc. In this paper, we study the sample complexity of testing whether a given preference profile is close to some specific domain. We consider two notions of closeness: (a) closeness via preferences, and (b) closeness via alternatives. We further explore the effect of assuming that the {\em outlier} preferences/alternatives to be random (instead of arbitrary) on the sample complexity of the testing problem. In most cases, we show that the above testing problem can be solved with high probability for all commonly used domains by observing only a small number of samples (independent of the number of preferences, $n$, and often the number of alternatives, $m$). In the remaining few cases, we prove either impossibility results or $\Omega(n)$ lower bound on the sample complexity. We complement our theoretical findings with extensive simulations to figure out the actual constant factors of our asymptotic sample complexity bounds.

Lu and Boutilier proposed a novel approach based on "minimax regret" to use classical score based voting rules in the setting where preferences can be any partial (instead of complete) orders over the set of alternatives. We show here that such an approach is vulnerable to a new kind of manipulation which was not present in the classical (where preferences are complete orders) world of voting. We call this attack "manipulative elicitation." More specifically, it may be possible to (partially) elicit the preferences of the agents in a way that makes some distinguished alternative win the election who may not be a winner if we elicit every preference completely. More alarmingly, we show that the related computational task is polynomial time solvable for a large class of voting rules which includes all scoring rules, maximin, Copeland α for every α ∈ [0,1], simplified Bucklin voting rules, etc. We then show that introducing a parameter per pair of alternatives which specifies the minimum number of partial preferences where this pair of alternatives must be comparable makes the related computational task of manipulative elicitation NP-complete for all common voting rules including a class of scoring rules which includes the plurality,  k -approval, k -veto, veto, and Borda voting rules, maximin, Copeland α for every α ∈ [0,1], and simplified Bucklin voting rules. Hence, in this work, we discover a fundamental vulnerability in using minimax regret based approach in partial preferential setting and propose a novel way to tackle it.

Bribery in elections is an important problem in computational social choice theory. However, bribery with money is often illegal in elections. Motivated by this, we introduce the notion of frugal bribery and formulate two new pertinent computational problems which we call Frugal-bribery and Frugal- $bribery to capture bribery without money in elections. In the proposed model, the briber is frugal in nature and this is captured by her inability to bribe votes of a certain kind, namely, non-vulnerable votes. In the Frugal-bribery problem, the goal is to make a certain candidate win the election by changing only vulnerable votes. In the Frugal-{dollar}bribery problem, the vulnerable votes have prices and the goal is to make a certain candidate win the election by changing only vulnerable votes, subject to a budget constraint of the briber. We further formulate two natural variants of the Frugal-{dollar}bribery problem namely Uniform-frugal-{dollar}bribery and Nonuniform-frugal-{dollar}bribery where the prices of the vulnerable votes are, respectively, all the same or different. We study the computational complexity of the above problems for unweighted and weighted elections for several commonly used voting rules. We observe that, even if we have only a small number of candidates, the problems are intractable for all voting rules studied here for weighted elections, with the sole exception of the Frugal-bribery problem for the plurality voting rule. In contrast, we have polynomial time algorithms for the Frugal-bribery problem for plurality, veto, k-approval, k-veto, and plurality with runoff voting rules for unweighted elections. However, the Frugal-{dollar}bribery problem is intractable for all the voting rules studied here barring the plurality and the veto voting rules for unweighted elections.

A directed graph where there is exactly one edge between every pair of vertices is called a tournament. Finding the “best” set of vertices of a tournament is a well studied problem in social choice theory. A tournament solution takes a tournament as input and outputs a subset of vertices of the input tournament. However, in many applications, for example, choosing the best set of drugs from a given set of drugs, the edges of the tournament are given only implicitly and knowing the orientation of an edge is costly. In such scenarios, we would like to know the best set of vertices (according to some tournament solution) by “querying” as few edges as possible. We, in this paper, precisely study this problem for commonly used tournament solutions: given an oracle access to the edges of a tournament T , find f(T) by querying as few edges as possible, for a tournament solution f. We first show that the set of Condorcet non-losers in a tournament can be found by querying 2n−⌊log n⌋−2 edges only and this is tight in the sense that every algorithm for finding the set of Condorcet non-losers needs to query at least 2n−⌊log n⌋−2 edges in the worst case, where n is the number of vertices in the input tournament. We then move on to study other popular tournament solutions and show that any algorithm for finding the Copeland set, the Slater set, the Markov set, the bipartisan set, the uncovered set, the Banks set, and the top cycle must query Ω(n 2 ) edges in the worst case. On the positive side, we are able to circumvent our strong query complexity lower bound results by proving that, if the size of the top cycle of the input tournament is at most k, then we can find all the tournament solutions mentioned above by querying O(nk + n log n / log(1− 1 / k ) ) edges only.

Bribery in elections is an important problem in computational social choice theory. We introduce and study two important special cases of the bribery problem, namely, FRUGAL-BRIBERY and FRUGAL-$BRIBERY where the briber is frugal in nature. By this, we mean that the briber is only able to influence voters who benefit from the suggestion of the briber. More formally, a voter is vulnerable if the outcome of the election improves according to her own preference when she accepts the suggestion of the briber. In the FRUGAL-BRIBERY problem, the goal is to make a certain candidate win the election by changing only the vulnerable votes. In the FRUGAL-$BRIBERY problem, the vulnerable votes have prices and the goal is to make a certain candidate win the election by changing only the vulnerable votes, subject to a budget constraint. We show that both the FRUGAL-BRIBERY and the FRUGAL-$BRIBERY problems are intractable for many commonly used voting rules for weighted as well as unweighted elections. These intractability results demonstrate that bribery is a hard computational problem, in the sense that several special cases of this problem continue to be computationally intractable. This strengthens the view that bribery, although a possible attack on an election in principle, may be infeasible in practice.

The Coalitional Manipulation (CM) problem has been studied extensively in the literature for many voting rules. The CM problem, however, has been studied only in the complete information setting, that is, when the manipulators know the votes of the non-manipulators. A more realistic scenario is an incomplete information setting where the manipulators do not know the exact votes of the non- manipulators but may have some partial knowledge of the votes. In this paper, we study a setting where the manipulators know a partial order for each voter that is consistent with the vote of that voter. In this setting, we introduce and study two natural computational problems - (1) Weak Manipulation (WM) problem where the manipulators wish to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in at least one extension of the partial votes of the non-manipulators; (2) Strong Manipulation (SM) problem where the manipulators wish to vote in a way that makes their preferred candidate win in all possible extensions of the partial votes of the non-manipulators. We study the computational complexity of the WM and the SM problems for commonly used voting rules such as plurality, veto, k-approval, k-veto, maximin, Copeland, and Bucklin. Our key finding is that, barring a few exceptions, manipulation becomes a significantly harder problem in the setting of incomplete votes.