Skip to main content

Strategic Voting in Negotiating Teams

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13023))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A negotiating team is a group of two or more agents who join together as a single negotiating party because they share a common goal related to the negotiation. Since a negotiating team is composed of several stakeholders, represented as a single negotiating party, there is need for a voting rule for the team to reach decisions. In this paper, we investigate the problem of strategic voting in the context of negotiating teams. Specifically, we present a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a manipulation for a single voter when using a positional scoring rule. We show that the problem is still tractable when there is a coalition of manipulators that uses a x-approval rule. The coalitional manipulation problem becomes computationally hard when using Borda, but we provide a polynomial-time algorithm with the following guarantee: given a manipulable instance with k manipulators, the algorithm finds a successful manipulation with at most one additional manipulator. Our results hold for both constructive and destructive manipulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Our definition of a candidate’s position in a voter’s ranking is the opposite of the commonly used, and we chose it to enhance the readability of the proofs: \({pos(o,p_i)} \ge {pos(o',p_j)}\) is naturally translated to “o is ranked in \(p_i\) higher than \(o'\) is ranked in \(p_j\)”.

References

  1. Anbarci, N.: Noncooperative foundations of the area monotonic solution. Q. J. Econ. 108(1), 245–258 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartholdi, J.J., Orlin, J.B.: Single transferable vote resists strategic voting. Soc. Choice Welfare 8(4), 341–354 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183045

  3. Bartholdi, J.J., Tovey, C.A., Trick, M.A.: The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Soc. Choice Welfare 6(3), 227–241 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00295861

  4. Bossert, W., Sprumont, Y.: Strategy-proof preference aggregation: possibilities and characterizations. Games Econ. Behav. 85, 109–126 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Bossert, W., Storcken, T.: Strategy-proofness of social welfare functions: the use of the kemeny distance between preference orderings. Soc. Choice and Welfare 9(4), 345–360 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182575

  6. Brams, S.J.: Negotiation Games: Applying Game Theory to Bargaining and Arbitration, vol. 2. Psychology Press, Hove (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bredereck, R., Kaczmarczyk, A., Niedermeier, R.: On coalitional manipulation for multiwinner elections: shortlisting. In: Proceedings of IJCAI-2017, pp. 887–893 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brodt, S., Thompson, L.: Negotiating teams: a levels of analysis approach. Group Dyn. Theor. Res. Pract. 5(3), 208–219 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Universal voting protocol tweaks to make manipulation hard. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 781–788 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., Lang, J.: When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate? J. ACM (JACM) 54(3), 14 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Conitzer, V., Walsh, T.: Barriers to manipulation in voting. In: Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Procaccia, A.D. (eds.) Handbook of Computational Social Choice, pp. 127–145. Cambridge University Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Davies, J., Narodytska, N., Walsh, T.: Eliminating the weakest link: making manipulation intractable? In: Proceedings of AAAI, pp. 1333–1339 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dogan, O., Lainé, J.: Strategic manipulation of social welfare functions via strict preference extensions. In: The 13th Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare, p. 199 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., Sivakumar, D.: Rank aggregation methods for the web. In: Proceedings of WWW, pp. 613–622 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Elkind, E., Lipmaa, H.: Hybrid voting protocols and hardness of manipulation. In: Deng, X., Du, D.Z. (eds.) Algorithms and Computation, vol. 3827, pp. 206–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11602613_22

  16. Ephrati, E., Rosenschein, J.S., et al.: Multi-agent planning as a dynamic search for social consensus. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 423–429 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Erlich, S., Hazon, N., Kraus, S.: Negotiation strategies for agents with ordinal preferences. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 210–218 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Faliszewski, P., Procaccia, A.D.: AI’s war on manipulation: are we winning? AI Mag. 31(4), 53–64 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fatima, S., Kraus, S., Wooldridge, M.: Principles of Automated Negotiation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Gibbard, A.: Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41(4), 587–601 (1973)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Kıbrıs, Ö., Sertel, M.R.: Bargaining over a finite set of alternatives. Soc. Choice Welfare 28(3), 421–437 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0178-z

  22. Meir, R., Procaccia, A.D., Rosenschein, J.S., Zohar, A.: Complexity of strategic behavior in multi-winner elections. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 33, 149–178 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Narodytska, N., Walsh, T.: Manipulating two stage voting rules. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 423–430 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Obraztsova, S., Zick, Y., Elkind, E.: On manipulation in multi-winner elections based on scoring rules. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 359–366 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sánchez-Anguix, V., Botti, V., Julián, V., García-Fornes, A.: Analyzing intra-team strategies for agent-based negotiation teams. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 929–936 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Satterthwaite, M.A.: Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. J. Econ. Theor. 10(2), 187–217 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schmerler, L., Hazon, N.: Strategic voting in the context of negotiating teams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14097 (2021)

  28. Yang, Y., Guo, J.: Exact algorithms for weighted and unweighted borda manipulation problems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 622, 79–89 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Yu, W., Hoogeveen, H., Lenstra, J.K.: Minimizing makespan in a two-machine flow shop with delays and unit-time operations is NP-hard. J. Sched. 7(5), 333–348 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOSH.0000036858.59787.c2

  30. Zuckerman, M., Procaccia, A.D., Rosenschein, J.S.: Algorithms for the coalitional manipulation problem. Artif. Intell. 173(2), 392–412 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Ministry of Science, Technology & Space, Israel.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noam Hazon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Schmerler, L., Hazon, N. (2021). Strategic Voting in Negotiating Teams. In: Fotakis, D., Ríos Insua, D. (eds) Algorithmic Decision Theory. ADT 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13023. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87756-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87756-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87755-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87756-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics