Skip to main content

On the Parameterized Complexity of Party Nominations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11834))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Consider a fixed voting rule . In the Possible President problem, we are given an election where the candidates are partitioned into parties, and the problem is to determine if, given a party , it is possible for every party to nominate a candidate such that the nominee from is a winner of the election that is obtained by restricting the votes to the nominated candidates. In previous work on this problem, proposed by [10], it was established that Possible President is NP-hard even when the voting rule is Plurality and the election is restricted to single-peaked votes. In this contribution, we initiate a study of the parameterized complexity of the problem. Our main result is that for a natural choice of parameter (namely the number of parties), the problem is W[2]-hard in general but is FPT on the 1D-Euclidean domain. On the other hand, if we parameterize by the size of the largest party, we encounter para-NP-hardness even on profiles that are both single-peaked and single-crossing. This strengthens previously established hardness results. We also show a polynomial time result for the related Necessary President problem on single-crossing elections.

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 EPUB and 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this case, note that the outcome of the election does not depend on who is nominated.

References

  1. Arkin, E.M., Banik, A., Carmi, P., Citovsky, G., Katz, M.J., Mitchell, J.S.B., Simakov, M.: Choice is hard. In: Elbassioni, K., Makino, K. (eds.) ISAAC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9472, pp. 318–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48971-0_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Black, D.: On the rationale of group decision-making. J. Polit. Econ. 56 , 23–34 (1948)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Procaccia, A.: Handbook of Computational Social Choice (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, J., Pruhs, K., Woeginger, G.J.: The one-dimensional euclidean domain: finitely many obstructions are not enough. Soc. Choice Welf. 48 (2), 409–432 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Cygan, M., et al.: Parameterized Algorithms. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21275-3

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Elkind, E., Faliszewski, P.: Recognizing 1-euclidean preferences: an alternative approach. In: Lavi, R. (ed.) SAGT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8768, pp. 146–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44803-8_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Elkind, E., Faliszewski, P., Skowron, P.: A characterization of the single-peaked single-crossing domain. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 654–660 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Elkind, E., Lackner, M., Peters, D.: Structured preferences. Trends Comput. Soc. Choice, 187–207 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Escoffier, B., Lang, J., Öztürk, M.: Single-peaked consistency and its complexity. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 366–370 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Faliszewski, P., Gourvès, L., Lang, J., Lesca, J., Monnot, J.: How hard is it for a party to nominate an election winner? In: Kambhampati, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, pp. 257–263. IJCAI/AAAI Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Knoblauch, V.: Recognizing one-dimensional euclidean preference profiles. J. Math. Econ. 46 (1), 1–5 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Mirrlees, J.A.: An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 38 (2), 175–208 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Misra, N., Sonar, C., Vaidyanathan, P.R.: On the complexity of chamberlin-courant on almost structured profiles. In: Rothe, J. (ed.) ADT 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10576, pp. 124–138. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67504-6_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Roberts, K.W.S.: Voting over income tax schedules. J. Public Econ. 8 (3), 329–340 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neeldhara Misra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Misra, N. (2019). On the Parameterized Complexity of Party Nominations. In: Pekeč, S., Venable, K.B. (eds) Algorithmic Decision Theory. ADT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11834. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31489-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31489-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31488-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31489-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics