--- title: "Explaining Preferences by Multiple Patterns in Voters’ Behavior" authors: - "Sonja Kraiczy" - "Edith Elkind" doi: "10.24963/ijcai.2022/53" url: "https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2022/53" pdf: "https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2022/0053.pdf" venue: "Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence" year: 2022 pages: "370-376" track: "Main Track" keywords: - "Agent-based and Multi-agent Systems: Computational Social Choice" --- # Explaining Preferences by Multiple Patterns in Voters’ Behavior Sonja Kraiczy, Edith Elkind *Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, pages 370-376. DOI: [10.24963/ijcai.2022/53](https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/53) ## Abstract In some preference aggregation scenarios, voters' preferences are highly structured: e.g., the set of candidates may have one-dimensional structure (so that voters' preferences are single-peaked) or be described by a binary decision tree (so that voters' preferences are group-separable). However, sometimes a single axis or a decision tree is insufficient to capture the voters' preferences; rather, there is a small number K of axes or decision trees such that each vote in the profile is consistent with one of these axes (resp., trees). In this work, we study the complexity of deciding whether voters' preferences can be explained in this manner. For K=2, we use the technique developed by Yang [2020, https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200099] in the context of single-peaked preferences to obtain a polynomial-time algorithm for several domains: value-restricted preferences, group-separable preferences, and a natural subdomain of group-separable preferences, namely, caterpillar group-separable preferences. For K > 2, the problem is known to be hard for single-peaked preferences; we establish that it is also hard for value-restricted and group-separable preferences. Our positive results for K=2 make use of forbidden minor characterizations of the respective domains; in particular, we establish that the domain of caterpillar group-separable preferences admits a forbidden minor characterization. ## Full text ## 1 Introduction A country X is about to have a general election. Each political party in X can be identified with a position on the leftto-right political spectrum. In addition, each party has also formulated a covid-19 policy, regarding issues such as vaccination requirements, school closures and mask mandates. These policies provide an alternative ordering of the parties, from those that support stringent measures to those that are opposed to any restrictions. The two orderings are quite different: e.g., while one of the left-wing parties believes that restrictions are harmful to their electorate, another one supports extreme virus control measures. Alice, Bob, Carol and Dave are planning to vote in this election. Alice and Bob's preferences are driven by the parties' positions on covid-19, even though their own preferences concerning covid-19 measures are very different: Alice strongly supports the continued use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, while Bob is opposed to them. However, both Alice and Bob completely ignore the parties' positions on the traditional left-to-right spectrum. In contrast, Carol and Dave believe that the pandemic will be over soon in any case, and rank the parties based on their social and economic policies. Thus, in this case collective preferences are driven by two axes on the set of candidates, with each voter's ranking being consistent with one of the axes (and ignoring the other axis). Now, suppose that we expect the collective preferences to have this general shape (potentially with k ≥ 2 axes), but we do not know the underlying k orderings: can we identify them, and the associated partition of the voter set, in polynomial time? This question is just as relevant for other notion of structure: while the idea of preferences being consistent with an axis is captured by the mathematical concept of single-peaked preferences [Black, 1948], we can also consider single-crossing [Mirrlees, 1971; Roberts, 1977] or group-separable preferences [Inada, 1964]. The latter domain, which has received comparatively less attention in the computational social choice literature (see, however, the recent work of Faliszewski et al. [2021]), consists of preference profiles that can be explained by binary decision trees: each alternative is characterized by a set of binary attributes, each voter has a preferred value for each attribute, and there is a binary tree whose vertices are labeled with attributes that guides the voters' decision-making process (we present formal definitions in Section 2). The problem of partitioning the input profile into k singlepeaked profiles has been considered by Erd´elyi et al. [2017], who obtained NP-hardness results for every k ≥ 3, but left the case k = 2 open. This open question was highlighted by Jaeckle et al. [2018] (who also study the analogue of this problem for single-crossing preferences, and obtain a polynomial-time algorithm for k = 2) and subsequently resolved by Yang [2020], who showed that for k = 2 this problem admits a polynomial-time algorithm. However, its variant for group-separable preferences (where we seek k binary decision trees that 'explain' the input profile) has not been considered before. Our Contribution The proof by Yang [2020] is based on the characterization of the single-peaked preferences in terms of forbidden minors: as shown by Ballester and Haeringer [2011], there is a small set of constant-size preference profiles such that a profile is single-peaked if and only if it does not contain a subprofile that is isomorphic to one of the profiles in this set. We observe that this approach extends to several other domains that admit a forbidden minor characterization, including, in particular, group-separable preferences. Further, we consider a natural subdomain of group-separable preferences, namely, the caterpillar group-separable domain: it consists of profiles for which the underlying binary tree is caterpillar-shaped, i.e., each binary decision pitches a single candidate against all other candidates. We provide a characterization of this domain in terms of forbidden minors, thereby showing that our algorithm applies to this domain as well. To complement these results, we show that the partitioning problem is NP-hard for group-separable preferences (and several other related domains) for every value of k ≥ 3. There are two reasons why we think that our results are interesting. First, a binary decision tree for a group-separable profile helps us understand the structure of the alternative space; this is still the case where the profile is 'explained' by two trees. Second, from a more practical perspective, there are voting problems that are computationally hard for general preferences, but admit polynomial-time algorithms for structured preferences; a prominent example is the algorithm for the Chamberlin-Courant rule for single-peaked preferences [Betzler et al., 2013], which relies on knowing the axis. While we do not yet know if similar results can be obtained for profiles that can be partitioned into a small number of structured profiles (see the work of Misra et al. [2017] and Yang [2020] for some contributions in this spirit), our results provide a promising starting point and a necessary ingredient for such algorithms. Related Work Our work belongs to a stream of research on the complexity of identifying nearly structured profiles (i.e., profiles that can be made single-peaked/singlecrossing/group-separable/etc. by small modifications), which was initiated by Bredereck et al. [2016] and Erd´elyi et al. [2017]; see also the work of Jaeckle et al. [2018] and Lakhani et al. [2019], and the survey by Elkind et al. [2017]. Several structured domains can be characterized by a small set of forbidden minors: this is the case for single-peaked and group-separable preferences [Ballester and Haeringer, 2011] and for single-crossing preferences [Bredereck et al., 2013]. In addition some domains are directly defined in terms of forbidden minors (i.e., the best/medium/worst/value-restricted domains [Sen, 1966]). Our minor-based approach is conceptually similar to the work of Elkind and Lackner [2014], who provide approximation algorithms for voter/candidate deletion towards structured preferences, for all domains that can be characterized by constant-size forbidden minors. Karpov [2019] and Faliszewski et al. [2021] initiated the algorithmic analysis of group-separable preferences. In particular, to the best of our knowledge, Faliszewski et al. [2021] are the first to discuss the domain of caterpillar groupseparable preferences; however, their primary focus is on the complexity of voting problems for such preferences rather than on the structure of this domain per se. ## 2 Preliminaries Let C be a finite set of candidates. A vote over C is a linear order over C. Given a vote v over C and two candidates a, b ∈ C, we write a ≻v b to denote that a is ranked above b in v. We extend this notation to sets: A ≻v B means that v ranks all elements of A above all elements of B. A preference profile P over a candidate set C is a list of votes over C. Given a vote v over C and a subset of candidates A ⊆ C, the restriction of v to A is the vote v|A over A such that for all a, b ∈ A it holds that v|A ranks a above b if and only if v ranks a above b. Given a profile P = (v1, . . . , vn) over C and a subset of candidates A ⊆ C, the restriction of P to A is the profile P|A = (u1, . . . , un) such that ui = vi|A for each i ∈ [n]. A profile P ′ over A is a subprofile of a profile P over C if A ⊆ C and P ′ is obtained by removing zero or more votes from P |A. We will consider several special classes of preferences. Definition 2.1 (Single-peaked preferences). Let ◁ be a linear order over a candidate set C. A vote v over C is single-peaked on ◁ if for every triple a, b, c ∈ C such that a◁b◁c it holds that b ≻v a or b ≻v c. A profile P over C is single-peaked on ◁ if every vote in P is single-peaked on ◁. A profile P is single-peaked if there exists an order ◁ over C such that P is single-peaked on ◁; this order is referred to as an axis for P . Single-peaked preferences model settings where all candidates can be ordered on a left-to-right axis, and each voter has a favorite point on this axis and ranks candidates on either side of their favorite point in order of increasing distance from this point: e.g., if the vote is over tax rates, a voter whose most preferred tax rate is 22% prefers 20% to 15% and 27% to 40% (but may prefer 27% over 20%). Definition 2.2 (Group-separable preferences). A profile P over a candidate set C is group-separable if every set of candidates A ⊆ C has a non-empty proper subset B ⊂ A such that for every vote v ∈ P we have either B ≻v (A \ B) or (A \ B) ≻v B. Equivalently, group-separable profiles can be defined in terms of binary decision trees as follows. An ordered binary tree is a rooted tree such that each internal node has two children, one of these children is designated as the left child, and the other is designated as the right child. Given an ordered binary tree T whose leaves are labeled with elements of C, we say that a vote v over C is T-consistent if for each internal node x of T it holds that either v ranks all candidates in the left subtree of x over all candidates in the right subtree of x, or vice versa. We say that a profile P is T-consistent if every vote in P is T-consistent. The following proposition is implicit in prior work (see, e.g. [Karpov, 2019]); for completeness, we provide a proof in the full version [Kraiczy and Elkind, 2021]. Proposition 1. A profile P is group-separable if and only if it is T-consistent for some ordered binary tree T . One can then think of internal nodes of T as binary attributes: all candidates in the left subtree of x possess the attribute associated with x, while all candidates in the right subtree of x do not possess it. Each voter views each attribute as desirable or undesirable and forms their ranking accordingly, by starting at the root of the tree and moving downwards. Thus, the tree T in the definition of group-separable preferences plays a similar role to the axis ◁ in the definition of single-peaked preferences: they both 'explain' the rationale behind the voters' decision-making. A restricted domain is a collection of preference profiles; e.g., we will speak of the domain of all single-peaked profiles (denoted by SP) and the domain of all group-separable profiles (denoted by GS). A restricted domain X is hereditary if for every profile P ∈ X it holds that every subprofile of P is in X. It is immediate from the definitions that both SP and GS are hereditary. Two profiles are said to be isomorphic if they can be obtained from each other by renaming candidates and/or reordering votes. A p × q minor is a profile that contains p votes and q candidates. We say that a profile P contains a minor Q if there is a subprofile of P that is isomorphic to Q. A restricted domain X can be characterized by a set of forbidden minors if there is a set of minors Q such that a profile P belongs to X if and only if it does not contain a minor in Q; we refer to the set Q as the set of forbidden minors for X. Proposition 2. [Lackner and Lackner, 2017] A restricted domain can be characterized by a (possibly infinite) set of forbidden minors if and only if it is hereditary. There are well-studied restricted domains that are explicitly defined in terms of forbidden minors. Definition 2.3. For j = 1, 2, 3, we say that a 3-by-3 minor Q is a j-minor if in Q each candidate appears in the j-th position exactly once (note that for each j = 1, 2, 3 there are several j-minors that are not pairwise isomorphic). A profile P is best-/medium-/worst-restricted if it does not contain any 1-(respectively, 2-, 3-)minors. We say that a profile is value-restricted if it is simultaneously best-, medium-, and worst-restricted. We will denote the restricted domains that consist of best-/medium-/worst-/value-restricted profiles by, respectively, BR, MR, WR, and VR. By definition, each of the domains BR, MR, WR and VR can be characterized by a finite set of forbidden minors. It has been shown that the domains SP and GS admit such characterizations, too; we give them below, as they are vital both for our hardness and for our easiness results. Theorem 1. [Ballester and Haeringer, 2011] A profile P is in SP if and only if it is worst-restricted and does not contain any of the four 2 × 4 minors given by Theorem 2. [Ballester and Haeringer, 2011] A profile P is in GS if and only if it is medium-restricted and does not contain the 2 × 4 minor given by For each restricted domain X and a positive integer k, we define the following decision problem. X VOTER k-PARTITION: Input: A profile P . Question: Can P be partitioned into k profiles P1, . . . , Pk so that Pi is in X for each i ∈ [k]? ## 3 Partitioning Voters into Two Groups The main result of this section is the following theorem. Theorem 3. Let X be a restricted domain such that for some constant ℓ ∈ N, X can be characterized by a finite set Q of forbidden minors, where each minor in Q is either a 2 × ℓ minor or a j-minor for some j = 1, 2, 3. Then X VOTER 2-PARTITION admits a polynomial-time algorithm. Note that the condition in the statement of Theorem 3 is satisfied by all restricted domains defined in Section 2. Hence, we obtain the following corollary. Corollary 1. The problem X VOTER 2-PARTITION is in P for X ∈ {GS, BR, MR, WR, VR}. For the SP domain, an analogue of Corollary 1 has been shown by Yang [2020]; our techniques are similar to his. 1 Proof sketch. Consider a domain X that satisfies the conditions in the theorem statement, and let Q be the respective set of forbidden minors. Fix a profile P. Note that if P contains multiple copies of a vote v, we can remove all but one copy without changing the answer. Therefore, we can assume that P does not contain two identical votes. Also, the order of votes in P does not matter. Thus, from now on we will treat P as a set of votes. Our goal, then, is to decide whether we can partition P as P = U ∪ V so that U, V ∈ X. We first explain how i-minors, i = 1, 2, 3, induce a partition of P into three subsets. Fix a candidate triple T = {a, b, c} ⊆ C and i ∈ {1, 2, 3}. For each x ∈ T , let P iT,x be the set of votes v ∈ P such that x appears in the i-th position in v|T . We will say that T is i-dangerous for P if Q contains an i-minor and P iT,a , P iT,b , P iT,c ̸= ∅. Our analysis relies on the following lemma. Lemma 1. Suppose Q contains an i-minor, i ∈ [3]. Suppose we can partition P as P = U ∪ V so that U, V ∈ X. Then for every i-dangerous triple T ⊂ C there is at most one candidate a ∈ T such that both U ∩P iT,a ̸= ∅ and V ∩P iT,a ̸= ∅ hold. Proof. Suppose that for some i-dangerous triple T = {a, b, c} there are two candidates a, b ∈ T such that the sets P ia and P i b both have non-empty intersection with each of U and V . There is a set W ∈ {U, V } with P iT,c ∩ W ̸= ∅. But then W contains a forbidden i-minor, so it is not in X. We start by checking, for each of the (m3 ) triples T = {a, b, c} ⊂ C, whether for each i-minor in Q each of the sets P iT,a , P iT,b and P iT,c is in X. Note that, as X can be characterized by a finite set of forbidden minors, and the size of each minor in Q is bounded by a constant, we can check in polynomial time whether a given profile is in X. If for some i-dangerous triple T , and forbidden i-minor in Q at least two of the sets P iT,x , x ∈ T, (say, P iT,a and P iT,b ) are not in X, then we report that P is a no-instance; this decision is correct by Lemma 1. Therefore, in what follows, for each forbidden i-minor Q ∈ Q over a triple T = {a, b, c}, we assume that at most one of the sets P iT,a , P iT,b and P iT,c is not in X. We now split our analysis into two cases. 1 Our results were obtained independently from Yang [2020], as we were not aware of his work. Case 1: For every i-dangerous triple T ⊂ A and every forbidden i-minor of X, exactly one of P iT,x , x ∈ T, is not in X. In this case, we construct a graph G with vertex set P so that G is bipartite if and only if P is a yes-instance of our problem. We define the edge set E of the graph G as follows. Given two votes u, v such that (u, v) induces a 2 × ℓ forbidden minor, we add the edge {u, v} to E; we refer to edges of this type as 2 × ℓ-edges. For every forbidden i-minor of X and each i-dangerous triple T = {a, b, c}, if P iT,c is not in X, then for every pair of votes (u, v) with u ∈ P iT,a , v ∈ P iT,b we add the edge {u, v} to E; we refer to edges of this type as i-edges. It is not hard to see that G is bipartite if and only if P is a yes-instance of our problem; see the full version of the paper for details. Case 2: There exists an i-dangerous triple T = {a, b, c} ⊂ C such that for each x ∈ T the set P iT,x is in X. In this case we construct three instances of 2-SAT and show that at least one of them is satisfiable if and only if P is a yesinstance of our problem. Recall that an instance of 2-SAT is given by a set of Boolean variables, which take values in {T, F} and a collection of clauses of the form x ∨ y, where x and y are (not necessarily distinct) literals (i.e., variables or negations of variables). It is satisfiable if we can assign values to all variables so that at least one literal in each clause is satisfied (i.e., takes value T ). We can decide in polynomial time if a given instance of 2-SAT is satisfiable [Sipser, 2013]. For each pair of candidates {a, b} ⊂ T we construct a 2SAT instance Ia,b that is satisfiable if and only if P can be partitioned as V = U ∪ V so that U and V are in X, with P iT,a ⊂ U and P iT,b ⊂ V . To this end, we use Lemma 1. For each v ∈ P iT,c , we create a Boolean variable xv; we interpret xv = T as v ∈ U and xv = F as v ∈ V . We create the following clauses: - For each v ∈ P iT,c , if there exists a u ∈ P iT,a such that u, v induce a 2 × ℓ forbidden minor, we add the clause ¬xv. Similarly, if there exists a u ∈ P iT,b such that u, v induce a 2 × ℓ forbidden minor, we add the clause xv. - For each v ∈ P iT,c , if there are u,w ∈ P iT,a such that u, v,w induce a j-minor in Q for j ∈ [3], we add the clause ¬xv; if there are u,w ∈ P iT,b such that u, v,w induce a forbidden j-minor, we add the clause xv. - For each pair of votes u, v ∈ P iT,c if there is a vote w ∈ P iT,a such that u, v, w induce a j-minor in Q, we add the clause (¬xu ∨¬xv), and if there is a vote w ∈ P iT,b such that u, v,w induce a j-minor in Q, we add the clause Suppose that P can be partitioned as U ∪V so that U, V ∈ X. We know that T is i-dangerous and there exist a, b ∈ T such that P iT,a ⊆ U, P iT,b ⊆ V by Lemma 1. We claim that Ia,b is satisfiable. Indeed, for each v ∈ P iT,c , let xv = T if v ∈ U and let xv = F if v ∈ V . Consider a clause of the form xv. For this clause not to be satisfied, it has to be the case that v ∈ V . But then Ia,b can only contain this clause if there exists a u ∈ P iT,b ⊆ V such that u, v induce a 2 × ℓ forbidden minor or if there exist u,w ∈ P iT,b ⊆ V such that u, v,w induce a j-minor in Q; in either case, we obtain a contradiction with V ∈ X. Similarly, for a clause of the form ¬xv not to be satisfied, it has to be the case that v ∈ U and U contains a forbidden minor. Further, for a clause (xu ∨xv) not to be satisfied, it has to be the case that u, v ∈ V and V contains a forbidden minor, and for a clause (¬xu ∨ ¬xv) not to be satisfied, it has to be the case that u, v ∈ U and U contains a forbidden minor. Thus, the truth assignment described above satisfies Ia,b. Conversely, suppose that there is a pair {a, b} ⊆ T such that Ia,b is satisfied, and let (x∗v )v∈P iT,c be a satisfying assignment for it. We then construct U, V by setting U = P iT,a ∪ {v ∈ P iT,c : x∗v = T}, V = P iT,b ∪{v ∈ P iT,c : x∗v = F}. We claim that U and V are in X. Indeed, consider U, and suppose that it contains a 2 × ℓ forbidden minor involving votes u and v. Since P iT,a and P iT,b are in X, we can assume without loss of generality that u ∈ P iT,a , v ∈ P iT,b . But in that case Ia,b contains the clause ¬xv, so we must have x∗v = F, a contradiction with v being placed in U. Now, suppose that U contains a j-minor in Q, j ∈ [3], involving votes u, v and w. Since P iT,a and P iT,b are in X, we can assume without loss of generality that either (1) u,w ∈ P iT,a , v ∈ P iT,c or (2) w ∈ P iT,a , u, v ∈ P iT,c . But then in case (1) the instance Ia,b contains the clause ¬xv, so we must have x∗v = F, and in case (2) the instance Ia,b contains the clause ¬xu ∨ ¬xv, so we must have x∗u = F or x∗v = F. In either case, we get a contradiction with how U is constructed. We conclude that U does not contain forbidden minors and therefore it is in X; by the same argument, S2 is in X as well. To summarize, our algorithm needs to consider O(m3 ) profiles, check whether each of them is in X, and then either construct a graph and decide whether it is bipartite or solve three instances of 2SAT. Thus, our algorithm runs in polynomial time. ## 4 Partitioning Voters into at Least Three Groups Erd´elyi et al. [2017] show that SP VOTER k-PARTITION is NP-complete even when k ≥ 3. Their reduction is from kPARTITION INTO CLIQUES. This problem, which is known to be NP-complete [Karp, 1972], is defined as follows. k-PARTITION INTO CLIQUES: Input: A graph G = (VG, EG). Question: Can we partition VG into k sets such that each set of vertices induces a clique on (VG, EG). In the following we show that VR VOTER k-PARTITION and GS VOTER k-PARTITION are NP-complete, too. While our proof also proceeds by a reduction from k-PARTITION INTO CLIQUES, our argument is quite different: we use 3×3 minors, whereas Erd´elyi et al. [2017] use 2 × 4 minors. The advantage of our approach is that it also applies to the VR domain, whose forbidden minor characterization does not use 2 × 4 minors. We start by considering the domains BR, MR, WR and VR. Then we explain why our proof approach also works for the GS domain. It is immediate that X VOTER k-PARTITION is in NP for each domain X that we consider, so in what follows we focus on NP-hardness proofs. Theorem 4. X VOTER k-PARTITION for X ∈ {BR, MR, WR, VR} is NP-complete for each k ≥ 3. Proof. Given a graph G = (V,E), we first create a graph G′ so that G′ contains k cliques of size k + 2 and is a yesinstance of k-CLIQUE PARTITION if and only if G is. For each i ∈ [k], let Hi be a clique with vertex set Ui, |Ui| = k + 2. To construct the graph G′ , we connect the vertices of all these cliques to all vertices of G. That is, G′ is the graph with vertex set V ′ = V ∪ U1 ∪ . . . ∪ Uk and edge set If V ′ 1 , . . . , V ′ k is a partition of G′ into k cliques, then each V ′ i , i ∈ [k], restricted to G is either a clique or an empty set. Conversely, if V1, . . . , Vk is a partition of G into k cliques, then V ′ 1 , . . . , V ′ k , where V ′ i = Vi ∪Ui, is a partition of G′ into k cliques. We are now ready to create an instance of VR VOTER kPARTITION. For convenience, renumber the vertices of G′ as u1, . . . , un. Instance In our instance, there are three candidates for each pair of vertices that does not form an edge of G′ , i.e., for each {ui, uj} ∈ (V ′ × V ′ ) \ E′ we set T i,j = {ai,j , bi,j , ci,j } and let We set P = (v1, . . . , vn), where n = |V ′ |. In each vote, the triples of candidates are ordered according to their indices: If i < ℓ or i = ℓ and j < r then in each vote all candidates in T i,j appear above all candidates in T ℓ,r . Further, if ℓ ̸= i, j then in vℓ candidates in T i,j are ranked as ci,j ≻ ai,j ≻ bi,j . Finally, in vote vi these candidates are ranked as ai,j ≻ bi,j ≻ ci,j and an vj they are ranked as bi,j ≻j ci,j ≻j ai,j . Suppose V1, . . . , Vk is a partition of G′ into cliques. We claim that for each ℓ ∈ [k] the profile (vi)ui∈Vℓ is in VR (and hence also in BR, MR and WR), i.e., it contains no jminors for j = 1, 2, 3. Indeed, for a triple of votes u, v,w and a triple of candidates a, b, c to form a j-minor for some j = 1, 2, 3, it has to be the case that {a, b, c} = T r,s for some {ur, us} ∈ (V ′ × V ′ ) \ E′ and vr, vs ∈ {u, v,w}, a contradiction with Vℓ forming a clique. Conversely, let P1, . . . , Pk be a partition of P into k valuerestricted profiles (the same argument works if each of these profiles is in BR, or if each of them is in MR, or in WR). Note that for each ℓ ∈ [k] and each j = 1, 2, 3 the profile Pℓ does not contain a j-minor. We will argue that each vertex set Vℓ = {ui : vi ∈ Pℓ} forms a clique in G′ . Observe first that if we have ur, us ∈ Vℓ for some ℓ ∈ [k] and {ur, us} ̸∈ E′ , then Vℓ = {ur, us}. Indeed, if Vℓ contains another vertex ut, where t ̸= r, s, then vt ranks the alternatives in T r,s as cr,s ≻ ar,s ≻ br,s and therefore vr, vs, vt and T r,s form a j-minor for each j = 1, 2, 3. It follows that each set Vℓ is either a clique in G′ or a pair of vertices with no edge between them. We will now use a counting argument to rule out the latter possibility. Recall that each of the disjoint cliques H1, . . . ,Hk is of size k + 2. Therefore, by the pigeonhole principle, for each j ∈ [k] there exists a set Vℓ(j) such that |Vℓ(j) ∩ Hj| ≥ 2. Moreover, if j ̸= j ′ then ℓ(j) ̸= ℓ(j ′ ). Indeed, suppose that ℓ(j) = ℓ(j ′ ) for some j ̸= j ′ , and consider the set Vℓ(j). It contains at least four distinct vertices, but it is not a clique, as there are no edges between Hj and Hj ′ , and we have argued that this is not possible. Hence, the mapping j ↦→ ℓ(j) is a bijection. That is, each set Vℓ, ℓ ∈ [k], contains two vertices from the same clique. Hence, no such set consists of two vertices that are not connected, and we have argued that in this case Vℓ must be a clique. This proves our claim. We will now explain how to extend the proof of Theorem 4 to group-separable preferences. Theorem 5. GS VOTER k-PARTITION is NP-complete for each k ≥ 3. Proof. We use the same reduction as in the proof of Theorem 4. Suppose the resulting profile P can be partitioned into k profiles P1, . . . , Pk so that each Pt is group-separable. Then, in particular, each Pt is in MR and hence corresponds to a clique in G′ . Conversely, suppose the graph G′ can be partitioned into k cliques V1, . . . , Vk, and let P1, . . . , Pk be the respective partition of P. The proof of Theorem 4 shows that each Pt does not contain a 2-minor. Hence, by Theorem 2 it remains to argue that each Pt does not contain the 2 × 4 minor a ≻u b ≻u c ≻u d, b ≻v d ≻v a ≻v c. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that for some t ∈ [k] the profile Pt contains this minor; abusing notation somewhat, assume that a, b, c, d ∈ C and u, v ∈ Pt. Consider the triple T i,j such that a ∈ T i,j . It cannot be the case that d ∈ T i,j , because a ≻u b ≻u c ≻u d would imply b, c ∈ T i,j , but we have |T i,j | = 3. Then d ∈ T ℓ,r , where ℓ > i or ℓ = i and r > j. But then all other voters in P, including v, rank a above d, a contradiction. ## 5 Group-separability on a Caterpillar In this section, we consider profiles that are group-separable on caterpillar graphs. A caterpillar is a binary tree in which each internal node has at least one child that is a leaf. Let E be a caterpillar with m leaves; observe that is has 2m- 1 vertices. For each i = 1, . . . ,m- 2, the tree E has exactly one leaf at depth i; we will denote this leaf by ci, and denote the two leaves at depth m-1 by cm-1 and cm. We will refer to E by (c1, . . . , cm). In what follows, given a caterpillar of this form, it will be convenient to denote the set of candidates {ci, . . . , cj}, where 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ m, by C[i,j]. Using this notation, we can say that V is group-separable on a caterpillar (c1, . . . , cm) if for every v ∈ V and every i ∈ [m- 1] it holds that ci ≻v C[i+1,m] or C[i+1,m] ≻v ci. Let CAT-GS denote the domain of all profiles that are groupseparable on a caterpillar. For proofs of the following two propositions, see the full version of the paper [Kraiczy and Elkind, 2021]. Proposition 3. A profile P is group-separable on caterpillar (c1, c2, . . . , cm) if and only if for every v ∈ P there is a subset C ′ ⊆ C such that C ′ ≻v C \ C ′ , and v ranks the candidates in C ′ in increasing order of indices and candidates in C \ C ′ in decreasing order of indices. Proposition 4. CAT-GS is closed under candidate deletion. Recall that closure under candidate deletion is necessary for a domain to admit a characterization by forbidden minors (Proposition 2). Recognition Algorithm The CAT-GS domain admits a simple recognition algorithm. Let us say that a candidate is polarizing for vote v if she is ranked either first or last in v; let π(v) denote the set of polarizing candidates for vote v. Given a profile P, the algorithm proceeds in m- 2 steps. At each step, it looks for a candidate that is polarizing for all votes. If some such candidate is found, it is removed from all votes, and the algorithm proceeds to the next step. If no such candidate is found, the algorithm reports that P does not belong to CAT-GS. Now, suppose the algorithm succeeds. Relabel the candidates so that the candidate identified at the j-th step is labeled as cj, and the two candidates that remain after the algorithm terminates are labeled as cm-1 and cm. Then the profile P is caterpillar group-separable on (c1, . . . , cm). The correctness of the algorithm is immediate from Proposition 4. We are now ready to present our minor-based characterization of CAT-GS. Theorem 6. A profile P is group-separable on a caterpillar if and only if (1) it is medium restricted and (2) it does not contain any of the four 2 × 4 forbidden minors given by Proof. It is easy to see that if a profile is group-separable on a caterpillar, it satisfies conditions (1) and (2). For the converse direction, we show that if our recognition algorithm fails on P , then P contains a forbidden 2 × 4 minor given by condition (2) or a 2-minor. Suppose our recognition algorithm fails at step j, j ≤ m- 2, i.e., there is no candidate at that step that is polarizing for all votes. From now on, we consider the restriction of P to the remaining candidates. Consider a vote u, and let a and b be the two polarizing candidates for that vote, so that π(u) = {a, b}. We know that there is some vote v such that a ̸∈ π(v). If b ̸∈ π(v) either, i.e., π(v) = {c, d} and {a, b} ∩ {c, d} = ∅, then the votes u, v and candidates a, b, c, d form a forbidden 2×4 minor that satisfies condition (2), and we are done. So it remains to consider the case where π(v) = {b, c} for some c ̸∈ {a, b}. In this case, b is polarizing for both u and v; hence, there must exist a vote w such that b ̸∈ π(w). Now, if π(w) = {a, c}, the votes u, v,w and the candidates a, b, c form a 2-minor witnessing that the profile is not mediumrestricted, and hence does not belong to CAT-GS. Thus, there exists a candidate d ̸∈ {a, b, c} such that d ∈ π(w). Hence, it must be the case that (i) a ̸∈ π(w) or (ii) c ̸∈ π(w). But then since b ̸∈ π(w), in case (i) we have π(u)∩π(w) = ∅ and the votes u, w and candidates π(u)∪π(w) form a forbidden 2×4 minor. Similarly, in case (ii) we have π(v) ∩ π(w) = ∅ and the votes v, w and candidates π(v) ∪ π(w) form a forbidden 2 × 4 minor. It is interesting to compare the set of forbidden minors for the GS domain (Theorem 2) and for the CAT-GS domain (Theorem 6): while the former contains a single 2 × 4 minor, the latter contains four 2 × 4 minors, each of which is obtained by swapping the two central candidates in 0, 1 or 2 votes of the original minor. Given this minor-based characterization, we can then apply Theorem 3. ## Corollary 2. CAT-GS VOTER 2-PARTITION is in P. However, we cannot use the argument in the proof of Theorem 4 to show that CAT-GS VOTER 3-PARTITION is hard for k ≥ 3. This is because a set of of votes that corresponds to a clique in the input graph may contain a 2 × 4 forbidden minor for CAT-GS. We provide an explicit example in the full version of the paper. A similar issue arises if we try to adapt the hardness proof of Erd´elyi et al. [2017] for the SP domain (which was based on 2 × 4 minors) to the CAT-GS domain. Indeed, we cannot rule out the possibility that GSCAT VOTER k-PARTITION is polynomial-time solvable for k > 2; however, it does not seem possible to prove this using the proof technique of Theorem 3. ## 6 Conclusion and Future Directions Our work contributes to the study of structured and nearlystructured preferences. We provide a complexity classification for GS VOTER k-PARTITION, showing that this problem is easy for k = 2 and hard for each value of k ≥ 3. For the domain CAT-GS, we describe a simple recognition algorithm and characterization in terms of forbidden minors that is a natural consequence of that algorithm. This characterization implies that CAT-GS VOTER 2-PARTITION is in P as well. The most immediate open problem suggested by our work is the complexity of CAT-GS VOTER k-PARTITION for k ≥ 3. We remark that the complexity of SC VOTER kPARTITION for k ≥ 3 (where SC stands for 'single-crossing') is open as well [Jaeckle et al., 2018]. One can also explore other notions of closeness to group-separability and caterpillar group-separability, such as, e.g., the minimum number of candidate swaps required to make the input profile (caterpillar) group-separable; the variants of this problem for the GS domain where the closeness measure is based on voter/candidate deletion are NP-complete [Bredereck et al., 2016]. A somewhat different direction is to ask whether a given profile P can be split into two subprofiles P1 and P2 so that P1 and P2 belong to two different domains: e.g., so that P1 is single-peaked while P2 is group-separable; solving problems of this type may require new proof techniques. ## References 1. [Ballester and Haeringer, 2011] Miguel A Ballester and Guillaume Haeringer. A characterization of the single- peaked domain. Social Choice and Welfare, 36(2):305- 322, 2011. 2. [Betzler et al., 2013] Nadja Betzler, Arkadii Slinko, and Jo- hannes Uhlmann. On the computation of fully propor- tional representation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Re- search, 47:475-519, 2013. 3. [Black, 1948] Duncan Black. On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56(1):23- 34, 1948. 4. [Bredereck et al., 2013] Robert Bredereck, Jiehua Chen, and Gerhard J Woeginger. A characterization of the single- crossing domain. Social Choice and Welfare, 41(4):989- 998, 2013. 5. [Bredereck et al., 2016] Robert Bredereck, Jiehua Chen, and Gerhard J Woeginger. Are there any nicely structured pref- erence profiles nearby? Mathematical Social Sciences, 79:61-73, 2016. 6. [Elkind and Lackner, 2014] Edith Elkind and Martin Lack- ner. On detecting nearly structured preference profiles. In Proceedings of AAAI'14, pages 661-667, 2014. 7. [Elkind et al., 2017] E. Elkind, M. Lackner, and D. Peters. Structured preferences. In U. Endriss, editor, Trends in Computational Social Choice. AI Access Foundation, 2017. 8. [Erdélyi et al., 2017] Gábor Erdélyi, Martin Lackner, and Andreas Pfandler. Computational aspects of nearly single- peaked electorates. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Re- search, 58:297-337, 2017. 9. [Faliszewski et al., 2021] Piotr Faliszewski, Alexander Kar- pov, and Svetlana Obraztsova. The complexity of election problems with group-separable preferences. In Proceed- ings of IJCAI'21, pages 203-209, 2021. 10. [Inada, 1964] Ken-ichi Inada. A note on the simple majority decision rule. Econometrica, pages 525-531, 1964. 11. [Jaeckle et al., 2018] Florian Jaeckle, Dominik Peters, and Edith Elkind. On recognising nearly single-crossing pref- erences. In Proceedings of AAAI'18, pages 1079-1086, 2018. 12. [Karp, 1972] Richard M Karp. Reducibility among combi- natorial problems. In Complexity of computer computa- tions, pages 85-103. Springer, 1972. 13. [Karpov, 2019] Alexander Karpov. On the number of group- separable preference profiles. Group Decision and Nego- tiation, 28(3):501-517, 2019. 14. [Kraiczy and Elkind, 2021] Sonja Kraiczy and Edith Elkind. Explaining preferences by multiple patterns in voters' be- havior. arXiv preprint 2201.11195, 2021. 15. [Lackner and Lackner, 2017] Marie-Louise Lackner and Martin Lackner. On the likelihood of single-peaked preferences. Social Choice and Welfare, 48(4):717, 2017. 16. [Lakhani et al., 2019] Foram Lakhani, Dominik Peters, and Edith Elkind. Correlating preferences and attributes: Nearly single-crossing profiles. In IJCAI'19, pages 414- 420, 2019. 17. [Mirrlees, 1971] James Mirrlees. An exploration in the the- ory of optimum income taxation. The Review of Economic Studies, 38(2):175-208, 1971. 18. [Misra et al., 2017] Neeldhara Misra, Chinmay Sonar, and PR Vaidyanathan. On the complexity of Chamberlin- Courant on almost structured profiles. In Proceedings of ADT'17, pages 124-138, 2017. 19. [Roberts, 1977] Kevin Roberts. Voting over income tax schedules. Journal of Public Economics, 8(3):329 -340, 1977. 20. [Sen, 1966] Amartya K Sen. A possibility theorem on ma- jority decisions. Econometrica, pages 491-499, 1966. 21. [Sipser, 2013] Michael Sipser. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. International Thomson Publishing, 2013. 22. [Yang, 2020] Yongjie Yang. On the complexity of construc- tive control under nearly single-peaked preferences. In ECAI'20, pages 243-250, 2020.