text: We consider the problem of predicting winners in elections, for the case where we are given complete knowledge about all possible candidates, all possible voters (together with their preferences), but where it is uncertain either which candidates exactly register for the election or which voters cast their votes. Under reasonable assumptions, our problems reduce to counting variants of election control problems. We either give polynomial-time algorithms or prove #P-completeness results for counting variants of control by adding deleting candidates voters for Plurality, k-Approval, Approval, Condorcet, and Maximin voting rules. We consider both the general case, where voters' preferences are unrestricted, and the case where voters' preferences are single-peaked.
  @cite_37: Uncertainty arises in preference aggregation in several ways. There may, for example, be uncertainty in the votes or the voting rule. Such uncertainty can introduce computational complexity in determining which candidate or candidates can or must win the election. In this paper, we survey recent work in this area and give some new results. We argue, for example, that the set of possible winners can be computationally harder to compute than the necessary winner. As a second example, we show that, even if the unknown votes are assumed to be single-peaked, it remains computationally hard to compute the possible and necessary winners, or to manipulate the election.
  @cite_9: Voting is a general method for aggregating the preferences of multiple agents. Each agent ranks all the possible alternatives, and based on this, an aggregate ranking of the alternatives (or at least a winning alternative) is produced. However, when there are many alternatives, it is impractical to simply ask agents to report their complete preferences. Rather, the agents' preferences, or at least the relevant parts thereof, need to be elicited. This is done by asking the agents a (hopefully small) number of simple queries about their preferences, such as comparison queries, which ask an agent to compare two of the alternatives. Prior work on preference elicitation in voting has focused on the case of unrestricted preferences. It has been shown that in this setting, it is sometimes necessary to ask each agent (almost) as many queries as would be required to determine an arbitrary ranking of the alternatives. In contrast, in this paper, we focus on single-peaked preferences. We show that such preferences can be elicited using only a linear number of comparison queries, if either the order with respect to which preferences are single-peaked is known, or at least one other agent's complete preferences are known. We show that using a sublinear number of queries does not suffice. We also consider the case of cardinally single-peaked preferences. For this case, we show that if the alternatives' cardinal positions are known, then an agent's preferences can be elicited using only a logarithmic number of queries; however, we also show that if the cardinal positions are not known, then a sublinear number of queries does not suffice. We present experimental results for all elicitation algorithms. We also consider the problem of only eliciting enough information to determine the aggregate ranking, and show that even for this more modest objective, a sublinear number of queries per agent does not suffice for known ordinal or unknown cardinal positions. Finally, we discuss whether and how these techniques can be applied when preferences are almost single-peaked.
  @cite_44: For many election systems, bribery (and related) attacks have been shown NP-hard using constructions on combinatorially rich structures such as partitions and covers. This paper shows that for voters who follow the most central political-science model of electorates-- single-peaked preferences--those hardness protections vanish. By using single-peaked preferences to simplify combinatorial covering challenges, we for the first time show that NP-hard bribery problems--including those for Kemeny and Llull elections--fall to polynomial time for single-peaked electorates. By using single-peaked preferences to simplify combinatorial partition challenges, we for the first time show that NP-hard partition-of-voters problems fall to polynomial time for single-peaked electorates. We show that for single-peaked electorates, the winner problems for Dodgson and Kemeny elections, though Θ2p-complete in the general case, fall to polynomial time. And we completely classify the complexity of weighted coalition manipulation for scoring protocols in single-peaked electorates.
  @cite_15: Much work has been devoted, during the past 20years, to using complexity to protect elections from manipulation and control. Many ''complexity shield'' results have been obtained-results showing that the attacker's task can be made NP-hard. Recently there has been much focus on whether such worst-case hardness protections can be bypassed by frequently correct heuristics or by approximations. This paper takes a very different approach: We argue that when electorates follow the canonical political science model of societ al preferences the complexity shield never existed in the first place. In particular, we show that for electorates having single-peaked preferences, many existing NP-hardness results on manipulation and control evaporate.
  @cite_13: Many electoral control and manipulation problems-which we will refer to in general as ''manipulative actions'' problems-are NP-hard in the general case. It has recently been noted that many of these problems fall into polynomial time if the electorate is single-peaked, i.e., is polarized along some axis issue. However, real-world electorates are not truly single-peaked. There are usually some mavericks, and so real-world electorates tend merely to be nearly single-peaked. This paper studies the complexity of manipulative-action algorithms for elections over nearly single-peaked electorates. We do this for many notions of nearness and for a broad range of election systems. We provide instances where even one maverick jumps the manipulative-action complexity up to NP-hardness, but we also provide many instances where some number of mavericks can be tolerated without increasing the manipulative-action complexity.
summary: Single-peaked elections were studied for a long time in social choice literature, but they gained popularity in the computational social choice world fairly recently, mostly due to the papers of Walsh @cite_37 and Conitzer @cite_9 . Then, @cite_15 and, later, @cite_44 studied the complexity of control problems for single-peaked elections. Recently, Faliszewski, Hemaspaandra, and Hemaspaandra @cite_13 complemented this line of work by studying nearly single-peaked profiles.