Determining Possible and Necessary Winners Given Partial Orders
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Usually a voting rule requires agents to give their preferences as linear orders. However, in some cases it is impractical for an agent to give a linear order over all the alternatives. It has been suggested to let agents submit partial orders instead. Then, given a voting rule, a profile of partial orders, and an alternative (candidate) c, two important questions arise: first, is it still possible for c to win, and second, is c guaranteed to win? These are the possible winner and necessary winner problems, respectively. Each of these two problems is further divided into two sub-problems: determining whether c is a unique winner (that is, c is the only winner), or determining whether c is a co-winner (that is, c is in the set of winners). We consider the setting where the number of alternatives is unbounded and the votes are unweighted. We completely characterize the complexity of possible/necessary winner problems for the following common voting rules: a class of positional scoring rules (including Borda), Copeland, maximin, Bucklin, ranked pairs, voting trees, and plurality with runoff.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 16 Jan 2014.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 1.
3 papers.
- 2021DeepGroup: Representation Learning for Group Recommendation with Implicit Feedbackcited by 0
- 2022On the Complexity of Finding a Diverse and Representative Committee using a Monotone, Separable Positional Multiwinner Voting Rulecited by 0
- 2023Determining Winners in Elections with Absent Votescited by 0
- 2023Determining Winners in Elections with Absent Votes11 Oct 2023
- 2022On the Complexity of Finding a Diverse and Representative Committee using a Monotone, Separable Positional Multiwinner Voting Rule23 Nov 2022
- 2021DeepGroup: Representation Learning for Group Recommendation with Implicit Feedback13 Mar 2021