After more than two decades of extensive study on the complexity of single-winner voting problems, the computational social choice community has recently shifted its primary focus to multiwinner voting, given its generality and broad applications. In particular, many variants of manipulation, control, and bribery problems for approval-based multiwinner voting rules (ABM rules for short) have been studied from a complexity point of view (see e.g., [2, 27, 48, 55]). Existing works in this line of research predominantly concern the constructive model of these problems, which models scenarios where a strategic agent attempts to elevate a single distinguished candidate to winner status, or make a committee a winning committee. However, the destructive counterparts of these problems have not been adequately studied in the literature so far. This paper studies the complexity and the parameterized complexity of several destructive bribery problems for ABM rules. These problems are designed to capture scenarios where an election attacker (or briber) aims to prevent multiple distinguished candidates from winning by making changes to the votes (e.g., by bribing some voters to alter their votes) under certain budget constraints. The attacker's motivation may stem from these distinguished candidates being rivals (e.g., having completely different political views from the attacker), or the attacker attempting to make them lose to increase the winning chance of her preferred candidates. We consider five bribery operations categorized into two classes: atomic operations and vote-level operations.

Bribery in election (or computational social choice in general) is an important problem that has received a considerable amount of attention. In the classic bribery problem, the briber (or attacker) bribes some voters in attempting to make the briber's designated candidate win an election. In this paper, we introduce a novel variant of the bribery problem, "Election with Bribed Voter Uncertainty" or BVU for short, accommodating the uncertainty that the vote of a bribed voter may or may not be counted. This uncertainty occurs either because a bribed voter may not cast its vote in fear of being caught, or because a bribed voter is indeed caught and therefore its vote is discarded. As a first step towards ultimately understanding and addressing this important problem, we show that it does not admit any multiplicative $O(1)$-approximation algorithm modulo standard complexity assumptions. We further show that there is an approximation algorithm that returns a solution with an additive-$\epsilon$ error in FPT time for any fixed $\epsilon$.

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.

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.

We consider a multi-agent scenario where a collection of agents needs to select a common decision from a large set of decisions over which they express their preferences. This decision set has a combinatorial structure, that is, each decision is an element of the Cartesian product of the domains of some variables. Agents express their preferences over the decisions via soft constraints. We consider both sequential preference aggregation methods (they aggregate the preferences over one variable at a time) and one-step methods and we study the computational complexity of influencing them through bribery. We prove that bribery is NPcomplete for the sequential aggregation methods (based on Plurality, Approval, and Borda) for most of the cost schemes we defined, while it is polynomial for one-step Plurality.

We provide an overview of some recent progress on the complexity of election systems. The issues studied include the complexity of the winner, manipulation, bribery, and control problems.

We study the complexity of influencing elections through bribery: How computationally complex is it for an external actor to determine whether by paying certain voters to change their preferences a specified candidate can be made the elections winner? We study this problem for election systems as varied as scoring protocols and Dodgson voting, and in a variety of settings regarding homogeneous-vs.-nonhomogeneous electorate bribability, bounded-size-vs.-arbitrary-sized candidate sets, weighted-vs.-unweighted voters, and succinct-vs.-nonsuccinct input specification. We obtain both polynomial-time bribery algorithms and proofs of the intractability of bribery, and indeed our results show that the complexity of bribery is extremely sensitive to the setting. For example, we find settings in which bribery is NP-complete but manipulation (by voters) is in P, and we find settings in which bribing weighted voters is NP-complete but bribing voters with individual bribe thresholds is in P. For the broad class of elections (including plurality, Borda, k-approval, and veto) known as scoring protocols, we prove a dichotomy result for bribery of weighted voters: We find a simple-to-evaluate condition that classifies every case as either NP-complete or in P.