Skip to main content

Manipulating Stochastically Generated Single-Elimination Tournaments for Nearly All Players

  • Conference paper
Book cover Internet and Network Economics (WINE 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 7090))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We study the power of a tournament organizer in manipulating the outcome of a balanced single-elimination tournament by fixing the initial seeding. This problem is known as agenda control for balanced voting trees. It is not known whether there is a polynomial time algorithm that computes a seeding for which a given player can win the tournament, even if the match outcomes for all pairwise player match-ups are known in advance. We approach the problem by giving a sufficient condition under which the organizer can always efficiently find a tournament seeding for which the given player will win the tournament. We then use this result to show that for most match outcomes generated by a natural random model attributed to Condorcet, the tournament organizer can very efficiently make a large constant fraction of the players win, by manipulating the initial seeding.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartholdi, J., Tovey, C., Trick, M.: The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Social Choice Welfare 6(3), 227–241 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartholdi, J., Tovey, C., Trick, M.: How hard is it to control an election. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 27–40 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Braverman, M., Mossel, E.: Noisy sorting without resampling. In: SODA, pp. 268–276 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Coppersmith, D., Fleischer, L., Rudra, A.: Ordering by weighted number of wins gives a good ranking for weighted tournaments. In: SODA, pp. 776–782 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Erdős, P., Rényi, A.: On random matrices. Publications of the Mathematical Institute Hungarian Academy of Science 8, 455–561 (1964)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Feige, U., Peleg, D., Laghavan, P., Upfal, E.: Computing with unreliable information. In: STOC, pp. 128–137 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer, F., Procaccia, A.D., Samorodnitsky, A.: On voting caterpillars:approximating maximum degree in a tournament by binary trees. In: COMSOC (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gibbard, A.: Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41 (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hazon, N., Dunne, P.E., Kraus, S., Wooldridge, M.: How to rig elections and competitions. In: COMSOC (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lang, J., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B., Walsh, T.: Winner determination in sequential majority voting. In: IJCAI (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Russell, T.: A computational study of problems in sports. University of Waterloo PhD Disseration (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Russell, T., Walsh, T.: Manipulating tournaments in cup and round robin competitions. In: Algorithmic Decision Theory (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Satterthwaite, M.A.: Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Slater, P.: Inconsistencies in a schedule of paired comparisons. Biometrika 48(3/4), 303–312 (1961)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stanton, I., Vassilevska Williams, V.: Rigging tournament brackets for weaker players. In: IJCAI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vassilevska Williams, V.: Fixing a tournament. In: AAAI, pp. 895–900 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vu, T., Altman, A., Shoham, Y.: On the complexity of schedule control problems for knockout tournaments. In: AAMAS (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vu, T., Hazon, N., Altman, A., Kraus, S., Shoham, Y., Wooldridge, M.: On the complexity of schedule control problems for knock-out tournaments. In: JAIR (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Young, H.P.: Condorcets theory of voting. The American Political Science Review 82(4), 1231–1244 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Stanton, I., Vassilevska Williams, V. (2011). Manipulating Stochastically Generated Single-Elimination Tournaments for Nearly All Players. In: Chen, N., Elkind, E., Koutsoupias, E. (eds) Internet and Network Economics. WINE 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7090. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25510-6_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25510-6_28

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-25509-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-25510-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics