Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
125 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

An impossibility result for strongly group-strategyproof multi-winner approval-based voting (2402.08746v1)

Published 13 Feb 2024 in cs.GT

Abstract: Multi-winner approval-based voting has received considerable attention recently. A voting rule in this setting takes as input ballots in which each agent approves a subset of the available alternatives and outputs a committee of alternatives of given size $k$. We consider the scenario when a coalition of agents can act strategically and alter their ballots so that the new outcome is strictly better for a coalition member and at least as good for anyone else in the coalition. Voting rules that are robust against this strategic behaviour are called strongly group-strategyproof. We prove that, for $k\in {1,2, ..., m-2}$, strongly group-strategyproof multi-winner approval-based voting rules which furthermore satisfy the minimum efficiency requirement of unanimity do not exist, where $m$ is the number of available alternatives. Our proof builds a connection to single-winner voting with ranking-based ballots and exploits the infamous Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem to reach the desired impossibility result. Our result has implications for paradigmatic problems from the area of approximate mechanism design without money and indicates that strongly group-strategyproof mechanisms for minimax approval voting, variants of facility location, and classification can only have an unbounded approximation ratio.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (27)
  1. Strategyproof approximation of the minimax on networks. Mathematics of Operations Research 35, 3 (2010), 513–526.
  2. Haris Aziz and Nisarg Shah. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Models and approaches. In Pathways Between Social Science and Computational Social Science: Theories, Methods, and Interpretations, Tamás Rudas and Gábor Péli (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 215–236.
  3. Individual versus group strategy-proofness: When do they coincide? Journal of Economic Theory 145, 5 (2010), 1648–1674.
  4. Group strategy-proof social choice functions with binary ranges and arbitrary domains: Characterization results. International Journal of Game Theory 41 (2011), 791–808.
  5. Generalized median voter schemes and committees. Journal of Economic Theory 61, 2 (1993), 262–289.
  6. Avraham Beja. 1993. Arrow and Gibbard-Satterthwaite revisited: Extended domains and shorter proofs. Mathematical Social Sciences 25, 3 (1993), 281–286.
  7. A minimax procedure for electing committees. Public Choice 132, 3/4 (2007), 401–420.
  8. Jaroslaw Byrka and Krzysztof Sornat. 2014. PTAS for minimax approval voting. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE). 203–217.
  9. Approximation algorithms and mechanism design for minimax approval voting. In Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 737–742.
  10. Facility location with double-peaked preferences. Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems 31, 6 (2017), 1209–1235.
  11. Allan Gibbard. 1973. Manipulation of voting schemes. Econometrica 41, 4 (1973), 587–602.
  12. Mechanism design for constrained heterogeneous facility location. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT). 63–76.
  13. Martin Lackner and Piotr Skowron. 2023. Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferences. Springer.
  14. Michel Le Breton and Vera Zaporozhets. 2009. On the equivalence of coalitional and individual strategy-proofness properties. Social Choice and Welfare 33, 2 (2009), 287–309.
  15. Some results on approximating the minimax solution in approval voting. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). 1193–1195.
  16. Asymptotically optimal strategy-proof mechanisms for two-facility games. In Proceedings 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC). 315–324.
  17. Vikram Manjunath. 2012. Group strategy-proofness and voting between two alternatives. Mathematical Social Sciences 63, 3 (2012), 239–242.
  18. Tight bounds for strategyproof classification. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). 319–326.
  19. Algorithms for strategyproof classification. Artificial Intelligence 186 (2012), 123–156.
  20. Herve Moulin. 1980. On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. Public Choice 35, 4 (1980), 437–455.
  21. Ariel D. Procaccia and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2013. Approximate mechanism design without money. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 1, 4 (2013), 18:1–18:26.
  22. Simon Rey and Jan Maly. 2023. The (computational) social choice take on indivisible participatory budgeting. CoRR abs/2303.00621 (2023).
  23. Mark Allen Satterthwaite. 1975. Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10, 2 (1975), 187–217.
  24. James Schummer and Rakesh V. Vohra. 2002. Strategy-proof location on a network. Journal of Economic Theory 104, 2 (2002), 405–428.
  25. Xin Sui and Craig Boutilier. 2015. Approximately strategy-proof mechanisms for (constrained) facility location. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). 605–613.
  26. Nimrod Talmon. 2023. Social choice around decentralized autonomous organizations: On the computational social choice of digital communities. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). 1768–1773.
  27. Toby Walsh. 2021. Strategy proof mechanisms for facility location at limited locations. In Proceedings of the 18th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI). 113–124.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.