Advertisement

Conference Program Design with Single-Peaked and Single-Crossing Preferences

  • Dimitris FotakisEmail author
  • Laurent Gourvès
  • Jérôme Monnot
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10123)

Abstract

We consider the Conference Program Design (CPD) problem, a multi-round generalization of (the maximization versions of) q-Facility Location and the Chamberlin-Courant multi-winner election, introduced by (Caragiannis, Gourvès and Monnot, IJCAI 2016). CPD asks for the selection of kq items and their assignment to k disjoint sets of size q each. The agents receive utility only from their best item in each set and we want to maximize the total utility derived by all agents from all sets. Given that CPD is \(\mathbf {NP}\)-hard for general utilities, we focus on utility functions that are either single-peaked or single-crossing. For general single-peaked utilities, we show that CPD is solvable in polynomial time and that Percentile Mechanisms are truthful. If the agent utilities are given by distances in the unit interval, we show that a Percentile Mechanism achieves an approximation ratio 1 / 3, if \(q=1\), and at least \((2q-3)/(2q-1)\), for any \(q \ge 2\). On the negative side, we show that a generalization of CPD, where some items must be assigned to specific sets in the solution, is \(\mathbf {NP}\)-hard for dichotomous single-peaked preferences. For single-crossing preferences, we present a dynamic programming exact algorithm that runs in polynomial time if k is constant.

References

  1. 1.
    Betzler, N., Slinko, A., Uhlmann, J.: On the computation of fully proportional representation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 47, 475–519 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caragiannis, I., Gourvès, L., Monnot, J.: Achieving proportional representation in conference programs. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2016), pp. 144–150 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chamberlin, J.R., Courant, P.N.: Representative deliberations and representative decisions: proportional representation and the Borda rule. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 77(3), 718–733 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietrich, F., List, C.: Majority voting on restricted domains. J. Econ. Theory 145(2), 512–543 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elkind, E., Faliszewski, P., Slinko, A.M.: Clone structures in voters’ preferences. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2012), pp. 496–513 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elkind, E., Lackner, M.: Structure in dichotomous preferences. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), pp. 2019–2025 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erdélyi, G., Lackner, M., Pfandler, A.: Manipulation of k-approval in nearly single-peaked electorates. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) ADT 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9346, pp. 71–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23114-3_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Escoffier, B., Lang, J., Öztürk, M.: Single-peaked consistency and its complexity. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008), pp. 366–370. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman, M., Fiat, A., Golomb, I.: On voting and facility location. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC 2016), pp. 269–286 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fotakis, D., Tzamos, C.: On the power of deterministic mechanisms for facility location games. ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. 2(4), 15:1–15:37 (2014)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hajiaghayi, M., Hu, W., Li, J., Li, S., Saha, B.: A constant factor approximation algorithm for fault-tolerant \(k\)-median. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2014), pp. 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marx, D.: Precoloring extension on unit interval graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. 154(6), 995–1002 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moulin, H.: On strategy-proofness and single-peakedness. Public Choice 35, 437–455 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Procaccia, A., Rosenschein, J., Zohar, A.: On the complexity of achieving proportional representation. Soc. Choice Welfare 30(3), 353–362 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Procaccia, A.D., Tennenholtz, M.: Approximate mechanism design without money. ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. 1(4), 18 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skowron, P., Yu, L., Faliszewski, P., Elkind, E.: The complexity of fully proportional representation for single-crossing electorates. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 569, 43–57 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sui, X., Boutilier, C., Sandholm, T.: Analysis and optimization of multi-dimensional percentile mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2013), pp. 367–374 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Fotakis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laurent Gourvès
    • 2
  • Jérôme Monnot
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Electrical and Computer EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, CNRS UMR [7243] LAMSADEParisFrance

Personalised recommendations