学术文献库

Various voting rules are based on ranking the candidates by scores induced by aggregating voter preferences. A winner (respectively, unique winner) is a candidate who receives a score not smaller than (respectively, strictly greater than) the remaining candidates. Examples of such rules include the positional scoring rules and the Bucklin, Copeland, and Maximin rules. When voter preferences are known in an incomplete manner as partial orders, a candidate can be a possible/necessary winner based on the possibilities of completing the partial votes. Past research has studied in depth the computational problems of determining the possible and necessary winners and unique winners. These problems are all special cases of reasoning about the range of possible positions of a candidate under different tiebreakers. We investigate the complexity of determining this range, and particularly the extremal positions. Among our results, we establish that finding each of the minimal and maximal positions is NP-hard for each of the above rules, including all positional scoring rules, pure or not. Hence, none of the tractable variants of necessary/possible winner determination remain tractable for extremal position determination. Tractability can be retained when reasoning about the top-$k$ positions for a fixed $k$. Yet, exceptional is Maximin where it is tractable to decide whether the maximal rank is $k$ for $k=1$ (necessary winning) but it becomes intractable for all $k>1$.