Permutation-Based Randomised Tournament Solutions
Voting rules that are based on the majority graph typically output large sets of winners. In this full original paper our goal is to investigate a general method which leads to randomized version of such rules. We use the idea of parallel universes, where each universe is connected with a permutation over alternatives. The permutation allows us to construct resolute voting rules (i.e. rules that always choose unique winners). Such resolute rules can be constructed in a variety of ways: we consider using binary voting trees to select a single alternative. In turn this permits the construction of neutral rules that output the set the possible winners of every parallel universe. The question of which rules can be constructed in this way has already been partially studied under the heading of agenda implementability. We further propose a randomised version in which the probability of being the winner is the ratio of universes in which the alternative wins. We also briefly consider (typically novel) rules that elect the alternatives that have maximal winning probability. These rules typically output small sets of winners, thus provide refinements of known tournament solutions.
KeywordsTournament Probabilistic rules Refinements Condorcet consistency
Justin Kruger and Stéphane Airiau are supported by the ANR project CoCoRICo-CoDec.
- 1.Altman, A., Kleinberg, R.: Nonmanipulable randomized tournament selections. In: AAAI (2010)Google Scholar
- 2.Aziz, H.: Maximal recursive rule: a new social decision scheme. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp. 34–40. AAAI Press (2013)Google Scholar
- 3.Aziz, H., Stursberg, P.: A generalization of probabilistic serial to randomized social choice. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 27–31 July 2014, Québec City, Québec, Canada, pp. 559–565 (2014)Google Scholar
- 7.Brandt, F., Brill, M., Harrenstein, P.: Tournament solutions. In: Handbook of Computational Social Choice, chap. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
- 8.Brill, M., Fischer, F.: The price of neutrality for the ranked pairs method. In: Proceedings of AAAI-2012, pp. 1299–1305 (2012)Google Scholar
- 9.Conitzer, V., Rognlie, M., Xia, L.: Preference functions that score rankings and maximum likelihood estimation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI-2009, pp. 109–115 (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.Fischer, F., Procaccia, A.D., Samorodnitsky, A.: A new perspective on implementation by voting trees. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 31–40. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
- 11.Freeman, R., Brill, M., Conitzer, V.: General tiebreaking schemes for computational social choice. In: Proceedings of AAMAS-2015 (2015)Google Scholar
- 13.Horan, S.: Implementation of majority voting rules. Preprint (2013)Google Scholar
- 15.Kreweras, G.: Aggregation of preference orderings. In: Mathematics and Social Sciences I: Proceedings of the Seminars of Menthon-Saint-Bernard, France, 1–27 July 1960, Gösing, Austria, 3–27 July 1962, pp. 73–79 (1965)Google Scholar
- 16.Lang, J., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B., Walsh, T.: Winner determination in sequential majority voting. In: IJCAI 2007, vol. 7, pp. 1372–1377 (2007)Google Scholar
- 18.Moon, J.W.: Topics on Tournaments in Graph Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1968)Google Scholar