Condorcet-Consistent and Approximately Strategyproof Tournament Rules
Jon Schneider, Ariel Schvartzman, S. Matthew Weinberg

TL;DR
This paper investigates the manipulability of Condorcet-consistent tournament rules, establishing lower bounds on manipulability and analyzing various tournament formats, including single-elimination and Copeland rules.
Contribution
It proves that all Condorcet-consistent rules are at least 1/3-manipulable and compares their manipulability to other tournament formats, highlighting the worst-case scenarios.
Findings
Condorcet-consistent rules are at least 1/3-manipulable
Single-elimination brackets are not more than 1/3-manipulable
Copeland rules are fully manipulable (1/1)
Abstract
We consider the manipulability of tournament rules for round-robin tournaments of competitors. Specifically, competitors are competing for a prize, and a tournament rule maps the result of all pairwise matches (called a tournament, ) to a distribution over winners. Rule is Condorcet-consistent if whenever wins all of her matches, selects with probability . We consider strategic manipulation of tournaments where player might throw their match to player in order to increase the likelihood that one of them wins the tournament. Regardless of the reason why chooses to do this, the potential for manipulation exists as long as increases by more than decreases. Unfortunately, it is known that every Condorcet-consistent rule is manipulable (Altman and Kleinberg). In this work, we address the…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
