PulseAugur
LIVE 12:26:53
research · [1 source] ·
0
research

Automated reasoning suggests smaller Condorcet winning sets suffice

Researchers have explored automated reasoning to narrow the gap between theoretical bounds for Condorcet winning sets in elections. While it's known that a committee of size 5 always exists, and a lower bound suggests 3 candidates might be needed, this work investigates if 4 are sufficient. Using a mixed-integer linear program to search for counter-examples, the team found no instances requiring more than 3 candidates. This empirical evidence supports a conjecture that a winning set of size 4 always exists, offering a new analytical path through linear programming duality. AI

Summary written by gemini-2.5-flash-lite from 1 source. How we write summaries →

RANK_REASON Academic paper presenting new theoretical bounds and empirical evidence for Condorcet winning sets in elections.

Read on Hugging Face Daily Papers →

COVERAGE [1]

  1. Hugging Face Daily Papers TIER_1 ·

    Is Four Enough? Automated Reasoning Approaches and Dual Bounds for Condorcet Dimensions of Elections

    In an election where $n$ voters rank $m$ candidates, a Condorcet winning set is a committee of $k$ candidates such that for any outside candidate, a majority of voters prefer some committee member. Condorcet's paradox shows that some elections admit no Condorcet winning sets with…