TY - GEN
T1 - Convergence and quality of iterative voting under non-scoring rules
AU - Koolyk, Aaron
AU - Strangway, Tyrone
AU - Lev, Omer
AU - Rosenschein, Jeffrey S.
N1 - Funding Information: This research has been partly funded by the HUJI Cyber Security Research Center in conjunction with the Israel National Cyber Bureau in the Prime Minister’s Office, by Israel Science Foundation grant #1227/12, and by NSERC grant 482671.
PY - 2017/1/1
Y1 - 2017/1/1
N2 - Iterative voting is a social choice mechanism that assumes all voters are strategic, and allows voters to change their stated preferences as the vote progresses until an equilibrium is reached (at which point no player wishes to change their vote). Previous research established that this process converges to an equilibrium for the plurality and veto voting methods and for no other scoring rule. We consider iterative voting for non-scoring rules, examining the major ones, and show that none of them converge when assuming (as most research has so far) that voters pursue a best response strategy. We investigate other potential voter strategies, with a more heuristic flavor (since for most of these voting rules, calculating the best response is NP-hard); we show that they also do not converge. We then conduct an empirical analysis of the iterative voting winners for these non-scoring rules, and compare the winner quality of various strategies.
AB - Iterative voting is a social choice mechanism that assumes all voters are strategic, and allows voters to change their stated preferences as the vote progresses until an equilibrium is reached (at which point no player wishes to change their vote). Previous research established that this process converges to an equilibrium for the plurality and veto voting methods and for no other scoring rule. We consider iterative voting for non-scoring rules, examining the major ones, and show that none of them converge when assuming (as most research has so far) that voters pursue a best response strategy. We investigate other potential voter strategies, with a more heuristic flavor (since for most of these voting rules, calculating the best response is NP-hard); we show that they also do not converge. We then conduct an empirical analysis of the iterative voting winners for these non-scoring rules, and compare the winner quality of various strategies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028571436&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/39
DO - https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/39
M3 - Conference contribution
T3 - IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
SP - 273
EP - 279
BT - 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017
A2 - Sierra, Carles
T2 - 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017
Y2 - 19 August 2017 through 25 August 2017
ER -