An author’s profile on Google Scholar consists of indexed articles and associated data, such as the number of citations and the H-index. The author is allowed to merge articles, which may affect the H-index. We analyze the parameterized complexity of maximizing the H-index using article merges. Herein, to model realistic manipulation scenarios, we define a compatability graph whose edges correspond to plausible merges. Moreover, we consider multiple possible measures for computing the citation count of a merged article. For the measure used by Google Scholar, we give an algorithm that maximizes the H-index in linear time if the compatibility graph has constant-size connected components. In contrast, if we allow to merge arbitrary articles, then already increasing the H-index by one is NP-hard. Experiments on Google Scholar profiles of AI researchers show that the H-index can be manipulated substantially only by merging articles with highly dissimilar titles, which would be easy to discover.

Complexity of voting manipulation is a prominent research topic in computational social choice. The voting manipulation literature usually assumes that the manipulator is only concerned with improving the outcome of the election from her perspective. However, in practice, the manipulator may also be reluctant to lie, i.e., she may have a preference for submitting a vote that does not deviate too much from her true ranking of the candidates. In this paper, we study the complexity of finding a manipulative vote that achieves the manipulator's goal yet is as close as possible to her true preference order. We analyze this problem for three natural notions of closeness, namely, swap distance, footrule distance, and maximum displacement distance, and a variety of voting rules, such as scoring rules, Bucklin, Copeland, and Maximin. For all three distances, we obtain polynomial-time algorithms for all scoring rules and Bucklin and hardness results for Copeland and Maximin.

Computational complexity of voting manipulation is one of the most actively studied topics in the area of computational social choice, starting with the groundbreaking work of [Bartholdi et al., 1989]. Most of the existing work in this area, including that of [Bartholdi et al., 1989], implicitly assumes that whenever several candidates receive the top score with respect to the given voting rule, the resulting tie is broken according to a lexicographic ordering over the candidates. However, till recently, an equally appealing method of tiebreaking, namely, selecting the winner uniformly at random among all tied candidates, has not been considered in the computational social choice literature. The first paper to analyze the complexity of voting manipulation under randomized tiebreaking is [Obraztsova et al., 2011], where the authors provide polynomial-time algorithms for this problem under scoring rules and—under an additional assumption on the manipulator’s utilities—for Maximin. In this paper, we extend the results of [Obraztsova et al., 2011] by showing that finding an optimal vote under randomized tie-breaking is computationally hard for Copeland and Maximin (with general utilities), as well as for STV and Ranked Pairs, but easy for the Bucklin rule and Plurality with Runoff.

The Borda voting rule is a positional scoring rule where, for m candidates, for every vote the first candidate receives m-1 points, the second m-2 points and so on. A Borda winner is a candidate with highest total score. It has been a prominent open problem to determine the computational complexity of Unweighted Coalitional Manipulation under Borda: Can one add a certain number of additional votes (called manipulators) to an election such that a distinguished candidate becomes a winner? We settle this open problem by showing NP-hardness even for two manipulators and three input votes. Moreover, we discuss extensions and limitations of this hardness result.

We study the computational complexity of the counting version of the Possible-Winner problem for elections. In the Possible-Winner problem we are given a profile of voters, each with a partial preference order, and ask if there are linear extensions of the votes such that a designated candidate wins. We also analyze a special case of Possible-Winner, the Manipulation problem. We provide polynomial-time algorithms for counting manipulations in a class of scoring protocols and in several other voting rules. We show #P-hardness of the counting variant of Possible-Winner for plurality and veto and give a simple yet general and practically useful randomized algorithm for a variant of Possible-Winner for all voting rules for which a winner can be computed in polynomial time.