On Approximating Optimal Weighted Lobbying, and Frequency of Correctness Versus Average-Case Polynomial Time
We investigate issues regarding two hard problems related to voting, the optimal weighted lobbying problem and the winner problem for Dodgson elections. Regarding the former, Christian et al.  showed that optimal lobbying is intractable in the sense of parameterized complexity. We provide an efficient greedy algorithm that achieves a logarithmic approximation ratio for this problem and even for a more general variant—optimal weighted lobbying. We prove that essentially no better approximation ratio than ours can be proven for this greedy algorithm.
The problem of determining Dodgson winners is known to be complete for parallel access to NP . Homan and Hemaspaandra  proposed an efficient greedy heuristic for finding Dodgson winners with a guaranteed frequency of success, and their heuristic is a “frequently self-knowingly correct algorithm.” We prove that every distributional problem solvable in polynomial time on the average with respect to the uniform distribution has a frequently self-knowingly correct polynomial-time algorithm. Furthermore, we study some features of probability weight of correctness with respect to Procaccia and Rosenschein’s junta distributions .
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Christian, R., Fellows, M., Rosamond, F., Slinko, A.: On complexity of lobbying in multiple referenda. In: Endriss, U., Lang, J. (eds.) First International Workshop on Computational Social Choice (COMSOC 2006), pp. 87–96 (workshop notes). Universiteit van Amsterdam (December 2006)Google Scholar
- 3.Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Nonexistence of voting rules that are usually hard to manipulate. In: Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2006)Google Scholar
- 4.Downey, R., Fellows, M.: Parameterized Complexity. Springer, New York (1999)Google Scholar
- 5.Dodgson, C.: A method of taking votes on more than two issues. Pamphlet printed by the Clarendon Press, Oxford (1876)Google Scholar
- 6.Erdélyi, G., Hemaspaandra, L., Rothe, J., Spakowski, H.: On approximating optimal weighted lobbying, and frequency of correctness versus average-case polynomial time. Technical Report TR-914, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (March 2007)Google Scholar
- 7.Flum, J., Grohe, M.: Parameterized Complexity Theory. In: EATCS Texts in Theoretical Computer Science, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
- 9.Goldreich, O.: Note on Levin’s theory of average-case complexity. Technical Report TR97-058, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (November 1997)Google Scholar
- 12.Impagliazzo, R.: A personal view of average-case complexity. In: Proceedings of the 10th Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, pp. 134–147. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1995)Google Scholar
- 14.McCabe-Dansted, J., Pritchard, G., Slinko, A.: Approximability of Dodgson’s rule. In: Endriss, U., Lang, J. (eds.) First International Workshop on Computational Social Choice (COMSOC 2006), pp. 331–344 (workshop notes). Universiteit van Amsterdam (December 2006)Google Scholar
- 17.Trevisan, L.: Lecture notes on computational complexity (Lecture 12) (2002), www.cs.berkeley.edu/~luca/notes/complexitynotes02.pdf
- 18.Wang, J.: Average-case computational complexity theory. In: Hemaspaandra, L., Selman, A. (eds.) Complexity Theory Retrospective II, pp. 295–328. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar