Kernelization complexity of possible winner and coalitional manipulation problems in voting

In the POSSIBLE WINNER problem in computational social choice theory, we are given a set of partial preferences and the question is whether a distinguished candidate could be made winner by extending the partial preferences to linear preferences. Previous work has provided, for many common voting rules, fixed parameter tractable algorithms for the POSSIBLE WINNER problem, with number of candidates as the parameter. However, the corresponding kernelization question is still open and in fact, has been mentioned as a key research challenge 10]. In this paper, we settle this open question for many common voting rules. We show that the POSSIBLE WINNER problem for maximin, Copeland, Bucklin, ranked pairs, and a class of scoring rules that includes the Borda voting rule does not admit a polynomial kernel with the number of candidates as the parameter. We show however that the COALITIONAL MANIPULATION problem which is an important special case of the POSSIBLE WINNER problem does admit a polynomial kernel for maximin, Copeland, ranked pairs, and a class of scoring rules that includes the Borda voting rule, when the number of manipulators is polynomial in the number of candidates. A significant conclusion of our work is that the POSSIBLE WINNER problem is harder than the COALITIONAL MANIPULATION problem since the COALITIONAL MANIPULATION problem admits a polynomial kernel whereas the POSSIBLE WINNER problem does not admit a polynomial kernel. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The undirected feedback vertex set problem has a Poly(k) Kernel

Resolving a noted open problem, we show that the Undirected Feedback Vertex Set problem, parameterized by the size of the solution set of vertices, is in the parameterized complexity class Poly(k), that is, polynomial-time pre-processing is sufficient to reduce an initial problem instance (G, k) to a decision-equivalent simplified instance (G', k') where k' � k, and the number of vertices of G' is bounded by a polynomial function of k. Our main result shows an O(k11) kernelization bound.

UNO Gets Easier for a Single Player

This work is a follow up to 2, FUN 2010], which initiated a detailed analysis of the popular game of UNO (R). We consider the solitaire version of the game, which was shown to be NP-complete. In 2], the authors also demonstrate a (O)(n)(c(2)) algorithm, where c is the number of colors across all the cards, which implies, in particular that the problem is polynomial time when the number of colors is a constant. In this work, we propose a kernelization algorithm, a consequence of which is that the problem is fixed-parameter tractable when the number of colors is treated as a parameter. This removes the exponential dependence on c and answers the question stated in 2] in the affirmative. We also introduce a natural and possibly more challenging version of UNO that we call ``All Or None UNO''. For this variant, we prove that even the single-player version is NP-complete, and we show a single-exponential FPT algorithm, along with a cubic kernel.

A Taxonomy of Big Data for Optimal Predictive Machine Learning and Data Mining

Big data comes in various ways, types, shapes, forms and sizes. Indeed, almost all areas of science, technology, medicine, public health, economics, business, linguistics and social science are bombarded by ever increasing flows of data begging to be analyzed efficiently and effectively. In this paper, we propose a rough idea of a possible taxonomy of big data, along with some of the most commonly used tools for handling each particular category of bigness. The dimensionality p of the input space and the sample size n are usually the main ingredients in the characterization of data bigness. The specific statistical machine learning technique used to handle a particular big data set will depend on which category it falls in within the bigness taxonomy. Large p small n data sets for instance require a different set of tools from the large n small p variety. Among other tools, we discuss Preprocessing, Standardization, Imputation, Projection, Regularization, Penalization, Compression, Reduction, Selection, Kernelization, Hybridization, Parallelization, Aggregation, Randomization, Replication, Sequentialization. Indeed, it is important to emphasize right away that the so-called no free lunch theorem applies here, in the sense that there is no universally superior method that outperforms all other methods on all categories of bigness. It is also important to stress the fact that simplicity in the sense of Ockham’s razor non-plurality principle of parsimony tends to reign supreme when it comes to massive data. We conclude with a comparison of the predictive performance of some of the most commonly used methods on a few data sets.