References

  1. H. Aziz (2014): Testing Top Monotonicity. Technical Report arXiv:1403.7625 [cs.GT]. arXiv.org. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7625.
  2. S. Barberà (2007): Indifferences and Domain Restrictions. Analyse & Kritik 29(2), pp. 146–162, doi:10.1515/auk-2007-0203.
  3. S. Barberà & B. Moreno (2011): Top Monotonicity: A Common Root for Single Peakedness, Single Crossing and the Median Voter Result. Games and Economic Behavior 73(2), pp. 345–359, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2011.02.004.
  4. J. Bartholdi, III & M. Trick (1986): Stable Matching with Preferences Derived from a Psychological Model. Operations Research Letters 5(4), pp. 165–169, doi:10.1016/0167-6377(86)90072-6.
  5. D. Black (1948): On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making. Journal of Political Economy 56(1), pp. 23–34, doi:10.1086/256633.
  6. D. Black (1958): The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge University Press.
  7. K. Booth & G. Lueker (1976): Testing for the Consecutive Ones Property, Interval Graphs, and Graph Planarity Using PQ-tree Algorithms. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 13(3), pp. 335–379, doi:10.1016/S0022-0000(76)80045-1.
  8. F. Brandt, M. Brill, E. Hemaspaandra & L. Hemaspaandra (2010): Bypassing Combinatorial Protections: Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Single-Peaked Electorates. In: Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 715–722.
  9. R. Bredereck, J. Chen & G. Woeginger (2013): A Characterization of the Single-Crossing Domain. Social Choice and Welfare 41(4), pp. 989–998, doi:10.1007/s00355-012-0717-8.
  10. J.-P. Doignon & J.-C. Falmagne (1994): A Polynomial Time Algorithm for Unidimensional Unfolding Representations. Journal of Algorithms 16(2), pp. 218–233, doi:10.1006/jagm.1994.1010.
  11. E. Elkind, P. Faliszewski, M. Lackner & S. Obraztsova (2015): The Complexity of Recognizing Incomplete Single-Crossing Preferences. In: Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 865–871.
  12. E. Elkind, P. Faliszewski & A. Slinko (2012): Clone Structures in Voters' Preferences. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 496–513, doi:10.1145/2229012.2229050.
  13. P. Emerson (2013): The Original Borda Count and Partial Voting. Social Choice and Welfare 40(2), pp. 352–358, doi:10.1007/s00355-011-0603-9.
  14. G. Erdélyi, M. Lackner & A. Pfandler (2013): Computational Aspects of Nearly Single-Peaked Electorates. In: Proceedings of the 27th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 283–289.
  15. B. Escoffier, J. Lang & M. Öztürk (2008): Single-Peaked Consistency and its Complexity. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 366–370, doi:10.3233/978-1-58603-891-5-366.
  16. P. Faliszewski, E. Hemaspaandra & L. Hemaspaandra (2014): The Complexity of Manipulative Attacks in Nearly Single-Peaked Electorates. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 207, pp. 69–99, doi:10.1016/j.artint.2013.11.004.
  17. P. Faliszewski, E. Hemaspaandra, L. Hemaspaandra & J. Rothe (2011): The Shield that Never Was: Societies with Single-Peaked Preferences are More Open to Manipulation and Control. Information and Computation 209, pp. 89–107, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2010.09.001.
  18. P. Fishburn (1973): The Theory of Social Choice. Princeton University Press.
  19. D. Fulkerson & O. Gross (1965): Incidence Matrices and Interval Graphs. Pacific Journal of Math 15(3), pp. 835–855, doi:10.2140/pjm.1965.15.835.
  20. E. Hemaspaandra, L. Hemaspaandra & J. Rothe (1997): Exact Analysis of Dodgson Elections: Lewis Carroll's 1876 Voting System is Complete for Parallel Access to NP. Journal of the ACM 44(6), pp. 806–825, doi:10.1145/268999.269002.
  21. E. Hemaspaandra, H. Spakowski & J. Vogel (2005): The Complexity of Kemeny Elections. Theoretical Computer Science 349(3), pp. 382–391, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2005.08.031.
  22. J. Kemeny (1959): Mathematics Without Numbers. Daedalus 88, pp. 577–591.
  23. K. Konczak & J. Lang (2005): Voting Procedures with Incomplete Preferences. In: Proceedings of the 1st Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling, pp. 124–129.
  24. M. Lackner (2014): Incomplete Preferences in Single-Peaked Electorates. In: Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 742–748.
  25. N. Mattei, J. Forshee & J. Goldsmith (2012): An Empirical Study of Voting Rules and Manipulation with Large Datasets. In: Proceedings (Workshop Notes) of the 4th International Workshop on Computational Social Choice, pp. 299–310.
  26. N. Mattei & T. Walsh (2013): PrefLib: A Library for Preferences. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory, pp. 259–270, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41575-3_20.
  27. J. Mirrlees (1971): An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation. The Review of Economic Studies 38(2), pp. 175–208, doi:10.2307/2296779.
  28. H. Moulin (1980): On Strategy-Proofness and Single Peakedness. Public Choice 35(4), pp. 437–455, doi:10.1007/BF00128122.
  29. N. Narodytska & T. Walsh (2014): The Computational Impact of Partial Votes on Strategic Voting. In: Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 657–662, doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-419-0-657.
  30. M. Schulze (2011): A New Monotonic and Clone-Independent, Reversal Symmetric, and Condorcet-Consistent Single-Winner Election Method. Social Choice and Welfare 36(2), pp. 267–303, doi:10.1007/s00355-010-0475-4.

Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org