/
On Voting Caterpillars On Voting Caterpillars

On Voting Caterpillars - PowerPoint Presentation

sherrill-nordquist
sherrill-nordquist . @sherrill-nordquist
Follow
381 views
Uploaded On 2016-02-28

On Voting Caterpillars - PPT Presentation

Felix Fischer Ariel D Procaccia and Alex Samorodnitsky Tournaments A 1m set of candidates A tournament is a complete and asymmetric relation T on A T A set of tournaments ID: 235311

trees voting ratio lemma voting trees lemma ratio caterpillar rsc copeland prob randomized theorem tree score max polynomial approx

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "On Voting Caterpillars" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

On Voting Caterpillars

Felix Fischer, Ariel D.

Procaccia

and Alex

SamorodnitskySlide2

Tournaments

A = {1,...,m}: set of candidates.

A

tournament is a complete and asymmetric relation T on A. T(A) set of tournaments.Related to voting.The Copeland score of i is its outdegree.Copeland Winner: max Copeland score.

1

5

2

6

4

3Slide3

Voting trees

1

3

?

?

?

?

2

1

3

1

2

3Slide4

Implementation by Voting trees

A candidate can appear multiple times in leaves of tree, or not appear (not

surjective

!). Which functions f:T(A)A can be implemented by voting trees? Many papers (since the 1960’s) but no characterization. [Moulin 86] Copeland cannot be implemented when m  8.[Srivastava and Trick 96] ... but can be implemented when m  7.Can Copeland be approximated by trees?Slide5

The two models

Deterministic model:

a voting tree

 has an -approx ratio if T, (s(T) / maxisi )  .Randomized model:Randomizations over voting trees. Randomization is admissible

if its support contains only surjective trees. Dist.  over trees has an -approx ratio if T, (E

[s(T)] / maxisi

)  .Slide6

Components

C

 A is a

component

of T if  i,jC

, kC, iTkjTk. Lemma [Moulin 86]: T and T’ differ only inside a component C,  a voting tree.

(T)C  (T’)C.(T)A\C(T)=(T’).

1

5

2

6

4

3Slide7

¾ deterministic upper bound

m = 3k, k odd.

T is 3 cycle of regular components.

In T, i si = k + (k-1)/2.One component in T’ is transitive.In T’ i s.t. si = k + (k-1), winner doesn’t change.The ratio tends to ¾.

T

k = 5Slide8

5/6 randomized upper bound

On board.Slide9

Randomized lower bound

Theorem 4.1.

 admissible randomization over voting trees of polynomial size with an approximation ratio of ½-O(1/m).

Inadmissible randomization that achieves ratio ½ is trivial. Important to keep the trees small. Slide10

Spot the fake caterpillar

1-Caterpillar is a singleton tree.

k-Caterpillar is a binary tree where left child of root is (k-1)-caterpillar, and right child is a leaf.

Voting k-caterpillar is a k-caterpillar whose leaves are labeled by A.

?

?

?

?

?

2

4

3

4

5

1Slide11

Randomized voting caterpillars

k-RSC: uniform distribution over

surjective

voting k-caterpillars.Lemma 4.2. Let T, pi(k) the prob. of i winning in k-RSC. Then  k=k(m,) polynomial such that i pi(k)si  (m-1)/2-.Theorem follows with =1 since

si  m-1. Slide12

k-RC

k-RC: assign alternatives independently and uniformly to leaves of k-caterpillar.

k-RC is inadmissible.

Lemma 4.3. Let T, pi(k) prob. of i in k-RSC, qi(k) prob. of i in k-RC. Then |pi(k) - qi(k)|

 m / ek-m.Slide13

k-RC and Markov chains

Define

M

=

M

(T).  = A.Initial distribution is uniform. P(i,j) =

i=j: (si+1)/mjTi: 1/miTj: 0

(k) = q(k+1)

1

2

5

4

3

1

3

3

3

3

5

1

2

2Slide14

Extra sketchy proof of Lem

. 4.2

Lemma 4.2.

Let T, pi(k) the prob. of i winning in k-RSC. Then  k=k(m,) polynomial such that i

pi(k)si

 (m-1)/2-.Lemma 4.3. Let T, p

i(k) prob. of i in k-RSC,

qi(k) prob. of i

in k-RC. Then |pi(k) - q

i(k)|  m / e

k-m.Lemma

4.4. Let T. M(T) converges to a unique stationary distribution . i

= i (si+1)/m + (j

: iTj j) / m

Lemma 4.5. Let T. i i s

i  (m-1)/2.Lemma 4.6. Let T. M(T) is rapidly mixing.

Proof of Lemma 4.2 follows (on board). Slide15

Stability of caterpillars

Example with ratio ½ + o(1). Consists of an almost regular tournament.

Theorem 4.7.

Let , ’ = (4)1/4. If i i si = (m-1)/2 + m, then

#{i: |si-m/2| > 3’m/2}  ’m.Slide16

Second order Copeland

Second order score of

i

is j:iTj sj. Theorem 4.8. k-RSC with k polynomial gives an approximation ratio of ½+(1/m). Lemma 4.9. i (

i j:iTj

sj)  m2/4 – m/2 (on board). Max second order score is (m-1)(m-2)/2. Slide17

גם בארזים נפלה שלהבת

Permutation trees

give

(log(m)/m)-approx.Huge randomized balanced trees intuitively do very well. k-RPT: every leaf at depth k, labels assigned uniformly at random.Theorem 5.1. K K’  K s.t. K’-RPT gives an approx ratio of at most O(1/m). Slide18

Open problems

Randomized model: gap between LB of ½ (

admissible, small)

and UB of 5/6 (even inadmissible and large)Deterministic: enigmatic gap between LB of (logm/m) and UB of ¾.