Abstract:A tournament on $n$ agents is a complete oriented graph with the agents as vertices and edges that describe the win-loss outcomes of the $\binom{n}{2}$ matches played between each pair of agents. The winner of a tournament is determined by a tournament rule that maps tournaments to probability distributions over the agents. We want these rules to be fair (choose a high-quality agent) and robust to strategic manipulation. Prior work has shown that under minimally fair rules, manipulations between two agents can be prevented when utility is nontransferable but not when utility is completely transferable. We introduce a partially transferable utility model that interpolates between these two extremes using a selfishness parameter $\lambda$. Our model is that an agent may be willing to lose on purpose, sacrificing some of her own chance of winning, but only if the colluding pair's joint gain is more than $\lambda$ times the individual's sacrifice. We show that no fair tournament rule can prevent manipulations when $\lambda < 1$. We computationally solve for fair and manipulation-resistant tournament rules for $\lambda = 1$ for up to 6 agents. We conjecture and leave as a major open problem that such a tournament rule exists for all $n$. We analyze the trade-offs between ``relative'' and ``absolute'' approximate strategyproofness for previously studied rules and derive as a corollary that all of these rules require $\lambda \geq \Omega(n)$ to be robust to manipulation. We show that for stronger notions of fairness, non-manipulable tournament rules are closely related to tournament rules that witness decreasing gains from manipulation as the number of agents increases.

Manipulating Tournaments in Cup and Round Robin Competitions

Condorcet-Consistent and Approximately Strategyproof Tournament Rules

Toward Fair and Strategyproof Tournament Rules for Tournaments with Partially Transferable Utilities

On Controlling Knockout Tournaments Without Perfect Information

Fixing knockout tournaments with seeds

Competition among Parallel Contests

Manipulability of Single Transferable Vote

On Approximately Strategy-Proof Tournament Rules for Collusions of Size at Least Three

Tight Bounds on 3-Team Manipulations in Randomized Death Match

Is computational complexity a barrier to manipulation?

Robust Draws in Balanced Knockout Tournaments

Complexity of and Algorithms for Borda Manipulation

Strategic Voting in the Context of Negotiating Teams

Refining Tournament Solutions via Margin of Victory

On the Power of Dominated Players in Team Competitions.

Coalitional Manipulation for Schulze's Rule

Ranking Tournaments with No Errors I: Structural Description

An Empirical Study of the Manipulability of Single Transferable Voting

Parameterized Analysis of Bribery in Challenge the Champ Tournaments

The Complexity of Manipulation of k-Coalitional Games on Graphs

New Complexity Results on Coalitional Manipulation of Borda